Do You Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist?
Do you really believe that nothing created everything? Author and evangelist Ray Comfort argues that it’s atheists who preach a faith-based doctrine.
In his new book “Nothing Created Everything” Comfort makes the case that evolution doesn’t add up. It’s not observable, testable and therefore not scientific. And he says atheism is founded on a contradiction: that nothing created something.
Ray Comfort has debated atheists on ABC’s Nightline, written several books on atheism including “You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think” and “The Atheist Bible”. He was a platform speaker at the 27th National Convention of American Atheists. Check out Ray’s Blog at Atheist Central.
He is also co-host (with actor Kirk Cameron) of the award-winning program “The Way of The Master”.
Watch Stu Live ..click the TV icon below
To watch and post right click your mouse and click open in new tab/window!
416 Comments on “Do You Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist?”
Mr. Comfort, in regards to evolution and ambiogenesis, no Atheist well educated in the Natural Sciences or in the current theories of ambiogenesis believe or teach that “nothing” created everything/something. Only Young Earth Christian Creationists and others who are as anti-science as them seem to believe this about Atheists and evolutionists.
You SHOULD know this.
Your welcome to fill in for Mr. Ted Wright within the “Can A Person Be Saved And Still Believe In Evolution?” site and debate with us evolutionists on this matter if you’d like. I know a good many Creationists that visit here would be happy to read you fight the good fight, and who knows, we all might actually learn a little something new and helpful from one another.
For goodness sakes, Ray Comfort debating the merits of evolution? Seriously, that is like having Rush Limbaugh teach conflict resolution. The very title indicates total ignorance about what cosmology, evolution, and the rest are really about. These people are still arguing against where science was more than 100 years ago.
Oh, and something else Christian fundamentalist YECers have in common with Muslim fundamentalists: denying evolutionary science even to the detriment of their educational system and thus adversely affecting their earning power. See http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14660446
Not observable? That would shock the people who’ve, you know, seen it. We’ve watched as one species turned into another, and even as one “kind” turned into another along any category that’s relevant to the discussion of evolution (or any living thing on this planet).
Not testable? Please investigate post 104 in “Can A Person Be Saved and Still Believe In Evolution?”. I give lots of ways to falsify evolution. An imaginative person could likely come up with a lot more.
These claims, frankly, show appalling ignorance of that which Mr. Comfort seeks to refute. I also note the deplorable ease with which evolution is linked to atheism.
Kash: Oh, and something else Christian fundamentalist YECers have in common with Muslim fundamentalists: denying evolutionary science even to the detriment of their educational system and thus adversely affecting their earning power.
Yeah. When that came to my attention, it seemed like a delicious twist of irony: whereas Christian creationist teachers accuse Darwin of inventing evolution to convince people of atheism, Muslim creationist teachers note that Darwin went to seminary and accuse Darwin of inventing evolution to convince people of Christianity.
Silly Mr. Comfort. You may want to note that the number of Christians who accept evolution far outnumber the total number of atheists.
Why doesn’t the general population accept Darwinistic evolution after decades of evolutionists trying to brainwash them into believing it? For one the created order shouts of an intelligent Designer behind it and two the evolutionists have no real evidence, they use examples of micro-evolution (which just about everyone already acknowledges as having happened) and pretend that is evidence for macro-evolution, and every now and they come up with an alleged missing link which in the end turns out to be no missing link at all. They have had decades to try to force their evolution dogma on the general public through the public schools, universities, and media and still the general public rejects their darwinistic orthodoxy because it is obviously false.
Welcome to the website Anonymous[assuming that your someone new]!
Anonymous, your making the same old mistakes that all other anti-evolutionists make. Please, I implore you, take the time to look up and read through every other show[Some of them are listed within the Category heading "Apologetics" as well as "Evolution".] that deals with this topic and THEN get back to us and debate. Trust me, it’ll be worth the time and trouble.
Anonymous: Why doesn’t the general population accept Darwinistic evolution after decades of evolutionists trying to brainwash them into believing it?
In part, because some people have been taught that their souls hang in the balance; if they accept it, according to these teachers, they cannot really be said to be faithful to the tenets of their faith.
Anonymous: For one the created order shouts of an intelligent Designer behind it
Care to share some of those shouts?
Anonymous: and two the evolutionists have no real evidence,
Not true. See posts 401 and 411 of part 3 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday?”, another discusssion on this site, for starters.
Anonymous: they use examples of micro-evolution (which just about everyone already acknowledges as having happened) and pretend that is evidence for macro-evolution,
See posts 401 and 411 of part 3 of “Should the church celebrate Darwin’s birthday?”, another discusssion on this site, for starters. Of all the evidences listed there, “repeated micro-evolution” doesn’t even show up.
Anonymous: and every now and they come up with an alleged missing link which in the end turns out to be no missing link at all.
Evolution tends to stay away from terms like “missing link” because they give bad impressions about how evolution works. In point of fact, every organism, past or present, is a “missing link” of one kind or another.
Anonymous: They have had decades to try to force their evolution dogma on the general public through the public schools, universities, and media and still the general public rejects their darwinistic orthodoxy because it is obviously false.
Whether or not the general public accepts evolution is not evidence of its truth or falsehood one way or the other. Science is not decided by popular opinion.
“Anonymous: For one the created order shouts of an intelligent Designer behind it”
“MattF: Care to share some of those shouts?”
MattF,
The Scripture seems to agree with Anonymous here. Consider a couple:
Psalm 19:1-3 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
Romans 1:19-20 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
It seems that the Scriptures say that the case from general revelation for the Creator is “plain, … clearly perceived, ….so they are without excuse.” No person will ever be able to stand before God and claim that He did not give them enough evidence for His existence. So, therefore, the created order “shouts” of the Triune God of the Scriptures, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
JD42: The Scripture seems to agree with Anonymous here.
Oh, sure. If you go back to previous posts of mine in these fora, you’ll see expressions of amazement about God’s creation as indications of the amazing God we serve. But one must be careful. The ID crowd and the creationists seem to imagine that it is not the things we can plainly see, but the mysterious things we do not understand, and can gain no information from, through which God communicates. I was trying to ferret out what Anonymous thinks.
JD42: It seems that the Scriptures say that the case from general revelation for the Creator is “plain, … clearly perceived, ….so they are without excuse.” No person will ever be able to stand before God and claim that He did not give them enough evidence for His existence. So, therefore, the created order “shouts” of the Triune God of the Scriptures, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I don’t disagree. But I also don’t condone the logic that then moves to the idea that it must be those things we have no idea about that will give people no excuse.
Note how Psalm 19:2 reveals the importance of knowledge gained from God’s creation to hear their declaration of God’s glory. Or that things that God reveals about Himself in creation are “what can be known about God” in Romans 1:19 (emphasis mine). God is a communicator, not Someone Who mistakes ignorance for revelation.
I trust you know that I do not mean to say that God is not mysterious. It’s just that He knows when “what can be known” can be “clearly perceived”; and if that’s how He chose to typify creation, it is a mistake to then insist that the way He does this is by using methods impenetrable to empirical inquiry.
I thought I would find you people here. MattF, what is observable?
Bob Griffin: what is observable?
That which is capable of being, or liable to be, observed; that which is discernible. Unlike, say, processes for which it is impossible, even in principle, to link cause and effect.
Anyone seen the latest issue of Science Illustrated magazine yet? I just got mine today at a local Publix store, so it shouldn’t be that hard for most people to get hold of.
Bob, you might find the article on Puijila darwini interesting[smile], among others. It’s good to have you join us here.
John I still need to listen to the podcast of this show. I heard about 10 minutes in the car. Ill try to get the Science Illustrated this weekend. Got family in from Florida and motorcycles this weekend – talk to you Monday.
I think you’ll also find the article within it titled “What Is A Species?” very enlightening, Bob.
Stu, you seem eager to have speakers on your program who ascribe all manner of theological and sociological ills to evolution. These speakers often complain that their ideas are being forced out of the public square by those who refuse to listen to any other point of view. There are also those (such as myself) who think that this ill-informed maligning of evolution muddies the waters and robs Christians of the chance to see the true God of the Universe as He has chosen to reveal Himself.
Do you believe that these ideas about the origin of biological diversity should be given equal time, and that people ought to be able to decide for themselves? If so, why not put your money where your mouth is, so to speak? I may be averse to the idea of a staged verbal debate, since its very format tends to render honest, evidence-based discussion impossible — but I’d welcome the opportunity to discuss issues like this calmly and openly in a conversational format, even and especially if guests are permitted to call in to ask questions or pose ideas. What do you think?
(I apologize if this is an inappropriate channel to use to discuss this. The only way I could find on the site to contact you is for commercial opportunities, and I’m nowhere near the level of financial independence necessary for that to be relevant.)
Heres one to get my buddies from the old site charged up.
According to an Associated Press newswire report, Shiloh Pepin, a girl from Maine diagnosed a disease called sirenomelia and dubbed “Mermaid Girl” by the press, has died. Shiloh Pepin, who was ten years old, had been in intensive care at Maine Medical Center throughout the last week and passed away Friday.
John Couldnt find the mag this weekend. Ill try Borders.
Bob, did you pick this story because the disease has the words Siren and Mermaid attached to it? What was the point that you were trying to make? What was it about this tragedy story that was supposed to get us charged up? Is it a play on the Young Earth Christian Creationists idea that all mutations are harmful, or something else?
John: What was the point that you were trying to make?
Remember all the fuss he made a while ago that evolution should expect to find mermaids, and we had to try to explain ideas about heredity and descent with modification to explain that he was wrong?
My first thought was that this, in Bob’s mind, had something to do with that. But it doesn’t seem to me that Bob would be so confused as to mix up a mermaid with someone who has a disease that makes her vaguely and superficially resemble a mermaid, especially since he tried to argue for some kind of transitional form between fish and mammal and she was clearly not that.
So I have to admit that I’m curious, too. I mean, I feel intense sympathy for the poor girl, but I can’t say that I’m “charged up”. What’s in this story that’s supposed to do that?
Yes, that too was MY first thought, which inspired my first question within post nineteen[smile].
Time will tell all.
Ray Comfort has been handing out copies of Darwin’s Origin with a special introduction he wrote. This blogger accuses him of ripping off Dr. Stan Guffey’s “A Brief History of Charles Darwin” in that introduction. Of course, the original copies of Origin that he handed out had several chapters heavy with evidence deleted; someone more cynical might think he had something to hide in trying to make his creationist assertions appear to carry more weight.
John Heading off to PA today. Im going to take your advice and avoid Bernie.
Quote from Ray Comfort: Nothing we have in creation is half evolved. The cow has a working udder to make drinkable milk. The bee has working apparatus to make edible honey. We don’t find a half-evolved cow or bee.
This is what we expect for intelligent refutation of evolution? Does he have the slightest clue about what the theory even posits?
Mr. Comfort, organisms don’t evolve each part in turn, randomly acquiring bodily features attached to an otherwise featureless blob like some kind of weird biological game of Mr. Potato Head. How can anyone believe he has any idea what he’s talking about?
Honey is just refined bee vomit, you know[smile]. Spit up and stored to feed the hive through the wintertime.
Matt,
How could there even be intelligent refutation of evolution? That’s like expecting intelligent refutation of the roundness of the earth or the fact that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. You can get crackpot refutation for those things of the sort Ray Comfort provides for evolution. Comfort purposely makes evolution sound ridiculous with his crazy arguments. But his only real argument, and he never stops pounding this home, is that if you believe in evolution you’re going to hell. His arguments are obviously not designed to win new converts so they only have to be good enough to convince those who already desperately want to believe him anyway. Who else could possibly believe anything either he or has-been ham actor Kirk Cameron says?
Kash: Just popped in to see how things were going.
You said: ”Oh, and something else Christian fundamentalist YECers have in common with Muslim fundamentalists: denying evolutionary science even to the detriment of their educational system and thus adversely affecting their earning power.”
As a fellow believer, your very anti-YECers attitude is showing. You prefer to believe evolutionary blabber instead of the Bible. God didn’t need to evolve everything, He spoke ……..and it was! You belittle God and His creation.
John: You still have the humour on the site! You always make me laugh! Keep it up!
I’m surprised there isn’t a question on Darwin today as it is the 150th anniversary of his publishing of the Origins. I shan’t wait around for any answers, hope y’all have a good day! Just thot I’d put my pennies-worth in. (I’m from Britain y’all that don’t know me).
Just for those who are new to the site, and would be interested in the FACTS behind the theories put out by evolutionary scientists, go to: http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org
Do you have enough faith to not believe in bigfoot? Do you have enough faith to doubt the existence of fairies? Do you have enough faith to disbelieve in Thor? Do you have enough faith to doubt Allah? Do you have the kind of faith that it takes not to beleive in the book of Mormon as literal truth?
If someone questions the validity of the Bible, it is a non-sequitur to conclude that they automatically ‘believe in’ nothing. Ray Comfort is very misinformed about what Science is, how it works, and what constitutes as evidence.
Gurgus: How could there even be intelligent refutation of evolution? That’s like expecting intelligent refutation of the roundness of the earth or the fact that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen.
Well, yes, I take your point. I’m just astounded at the level of ignorance Ray assumes that his audience must have — and rather saddened that in spite of the weakness of these arguments, he manages to rally enough people to his side to sell books and make occasional appearances in the mass media. It was a rhetorical question, borne of frustration and a little melancholy.
mherman: You prefer to believe evolutionary blabber instead of the Bible.
No, Maz. We’ve been over this. We prefer to believe the facts instead of your ideas about what the Bible says. Or Ray Comfort’s, for that matter.
mherman: God didn’t need to evolve everything, He spoke ……..and it was!
We’re not talking about what God did or didn’t “need” to do. We’re talking about what He did, as the evidence left behind clearly indicates. Even a minimalist examination using maximum parsimony shows that the belief that different organisms appeared abruptly is wrong.
mherman: You belittle God and His creation.
By trying to figure out how it was acutally accomplished?
With respect, Maz, you belittle the creation by insisting that it must have been done according to your own preferences, no matter what the facts are on the matter.
mherman: Just for those who are new to the site, and would be interested in the FACTS behind the theories put out by evolutionary scientists, go to: http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org
Well, she’s half right. If you want to find out what rumors the false teachers are spreading to misrepresent evolutionary theory, what “facts” they make up to support their stance, and what errors in logic they try to slip past you in the hopes that you don’t notice and think that they might have a point, go there. If you want to discuss — if you want to find out what evolutionary science has learned, why it has come to the conclusions it has, and engage in an honest discussion of the plainly-observable evidence, I’ll happily engage you. I’ll even show you why so many of these “evidences” are mistaken (or even out-and-out fabrications) if you want to discuss that.
Or, if you prefer hermeneutics, we can discuss the theological problems with believing young-Earth creationist teachings — or, in the name of honesty, ways in which I struggle to understand things right. But don’t be misled into thinking that their beliefs offer a way out of theological difficulty.
Whatever you do, don’t stop with AIG. Get the facts. Find out what we’ve really observed out there, not what they tell you we’ve observed. Find out what the Bible actually says and describes, not what they tell you it says and describes. Decide for yourself.
abc’s: Do you have enough faith to not believe in bigfoot? Do you have enough faith to doubt the existence of fairies? Do you have enough faith to disbelieve in Thor? Do you have enough faith to doubt Allah? Do you have the kind of faith that it takes not to beleive in the book of Mormon as literal truth?
Excellent point, abc’s. Not believing in something is not “faith”, nor does it mean that you have faith — no more than bald is a hair color, or alternatively, not playing the piano makes you a musician.
abc’s: If someone questions the validity of the Bible, it is a non-sequitur to conclude that they automatically ‘believe in’ nothing. Ray Comfort is very misinformed about what Science is, how it works, and what constitutes as evidence.
Well, yes. That’s all I meant to assert.
And that’s why discussion with and about these people is so interesting. You can really find fundamentals of thought you didn’t even know existed. It’s as if someone said that he understands how it feels to break up with someone and references literature: “Like when Shakespeare wrote about Heathcliff in ‘Terms of Endearment’. You know, Josephine was the name of his girlfriend in real life, too — until Henry VIII stole her away!” It’s hard to know where to begin.
Whats up fellow global warming deniers. These recent email finds put the climate changers in the same league as some of the evolutionist hoaxers. Im relishing my denier status now.
Bob Griffin:
Here is the link to the website that has several articles on the coming scandal regarding certain members of the scientific community, climate change, and the politicians that wish to control more and more of our lives:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2188feb3-802a-23ad-4de4-3fbc0a92e126&Issue_id
This has to have the liberal left cringing just as they thought they had victory within their grasp. They may still win the victory if they can pass climate change legislation (cap and trade), which is supported by those that would make billions trading carbon credits. We must not let down our guard as there are international negotiations to restrict America’s grow and transfer even more wealth overseas.
We live in a critical / pivotal period of time. The direction America takes over the next few years will impact generations to come. As a nation we will either reclaim our freedoms or we will lose them to an ever expanding government.
The sad part is that there are Christians support the Liberal LEFT agenda and are at heart worshipers of the State. It is, and has always been the state, when it gains too much power, that causes so much suffering for the citizens it governs.
Finally, although science has been dealt a blow by this emerging scandal, we should not automatically assume that other areas of science, namely evolution, are in the same boat as the climate change propagandist.
John: Honey is just refined bee vomit, you know[smile].
Yeah. You reminded me that way back when I was a schoolkid — in a private (Christian) elementary school, thanks to the poor educational standards of the community I was in at the time — we learned that, and put ourselves into giggle fits about “bee barf” (outside teacher earshot, naturally).
Good thing we didn’t hear about kopi luwak coffee, or we’d have completely lost it.
Mr. Comfort’s whole argument of “something from nothing” is ludicrous on its face, and attempts to assert things about the Big Bang Theory that the theory itself doesn’t accept or embrace. Let me see if I can manage to unravel the knot somewhat and make enough sense out of it to show why what the theory asserts isn’t even approachable by the argument that the idea of something coming from nothing is absurd.
The whole idea that the Universe “came from nothing” arises from an attempt to render the Big Bang, as general relativity would describe it, more approachable to a lay audience. According to general relativity, the Universe began as a “singularity” — a point of infinite density and zero volume. If it has zero volume, it’s tempting to describe that as “nothing”. After all, how could it be “something” if it takes up no room at all, and even the notions that we’re used to like space and time break down when we try to describe it? Strictly speaking, though, it’s not “nothing”; its mass-energy is clearly not zero, and how can “greater than zero” be nothing? Still, it seems weird to call it “something”, since whatever it is, it’s a thing our laws of physics and basic concepts of relationship can’t adequately describe. The closest thing it comes to is “undefined”, in the sense that it’s used to describe those math problems that don’t have a straightforward answer (like dividing by zero). It’s not that an answer does not exist; it’s that the answer is “undefined”. General relativity might give us an idea of what’s going on, but its descriptive power clearly breaks down at such a scale.
This weirdness has led to the understanding that the Universe was never really a singularity, at least not in the general relativity sense (zero volume, infinite density) — it was clearly once super-dense and super-small, even if not that super-dense and super-small. (We’ve known this from the beginning, and that some other theory describing what things are like at the scale of the super-small would have to take over where general relativity leaves off, if models of the ultra-young Universe are ever going to make sense.) Quantum mechanics, thankfully, gives us an out; it even allows us to describe what might have happened in order to give rise to the Big Bang. The problem right now, actually, is that there are too many outs; we don’t know which of several different explanations that could potentially give rise to things like Big Bangs is the one that gave rise to ours, and there are investigations currently under way to see which possibilities might be eliminated. But we have known, and have always known, that the Universe was not born from nothing at all.
Mike Ditto. Im waiting for MattFs comments on that.
Gurgus: “How could there even be intelligent refutation of evolution? ”
Easy, it is the same mentality that refutes that gold and silver are money, and electronic currency produced to infinity is actually worth something and will remain a stable measure of value.
I could go on, but you are no different from the people you criticize as not being reasonable…..in other words stupid. You are the classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. And while I’m in an insulting mood, the same goes for others on this board, many of which call themselves Christian.
The great philosopher, Forrest Gump sumarized it all, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
I’m willing to bet the same pointy headed statists believe in “climate change.”
Maz post 27,
Too bad you won’t be back to read the comments here, I would have told you how good it was to hear from you again[smile]. I actually miss you, you know. I have a photograph of a tree that I think you’d really get a kick out of. It ties into your ideas of “seeing God’s work in nature” rather well, because it has a scar on it that looks like an almost perfect cross within a circle.
Abc’s post 29,
Ever hear of something called “The Florida Skunk Ape”?
My dad and uncle both saw one of those one night when they were young men[grin].
No, really.
Bob post 31′
Enjoy that status as only you could[smile].
Matt F post 33,
“Good thing we didn’t hear about kopi luak coffee, or we’d have completely lost it.”
Yeah, and people pay a lot of money for that stuff too! Haaa!!!
Did you read the article in TIME magazine about the “Super Crocodile” that was discovered yet? What a monster!
Well, I’m reading it… piecemeal, I must admit, since the page claims that it will be updated through the rest of the day; I’d prefer to read it when it’s done and I have access to journals and such again, so that I can compare any findings he wants to present with actual data. I have to admit that I’m looking at it with a jaundiced eye, since Inhofe doesn’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to honesty on this subject matter(*).
I’m also amused by Mike’s accusation that it’s the statists whom he expects to accept climate change, but his standard on determining scientific data comes from the page of a political committee. It’s possible that he’s uncovered some genuine wrongdoing, and if so, that should be made plain and stopped as soon as possible, regardless of who’s blowing the proverbial whistle.
(*) Some quick things to illustrate what I mean:
* He’s excused global warming by referring to the “Medieval Warm Period”. I know of no credible evidence that the “Medieval Warm Period” was as warm as, or was warmer than, the late twentieth century. Of course, you can feel free to set me straight. (Be sure to include context as it relates to the last 1000 years.)
* He criticized the “Hockey Stick” graph, invoking a modeling study by the German GKSS group — who, contrary to what you might think by reading him, support the Hockey Stick graph and anthropogenic influence.
* It’s informative to read Dr. Stephen Schneider and Dr. Tom Wigley’s response to a speech Inhofe gave in July 2003 on the senate floor; Senator McCain gave them a chance to reply to several false assertions Inhofe made about them while trying to assert his contrarian arguments.
* Inhofe gave a list of 413 people whom he claimed were “prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming”. However, of those, 84 had taken money from or were otherwise connected to fossil fuel industries (which doesn’t immediately denote junk science, but ought to cast doubt on the whole motive angle); 49 were retired (which doesn’t denote being wrong, either, but also means that you’re not “prominent”, especially on a cutting-edge issue); 44 were TV weathermen (which is very different from having an aptitude for forecasting climate conditions over decades of time — remember, weather is not climate); 20 were economists (who are valuable people to have in political arenas, but who aren’t climate scientists); and 70 had no apparent expertise in claimate science. Several of these “skeptics” came out specifically to announce that they are concerned about global warming and want to see it addressed; one even claimed he was duped into signing the list in spite of the fact that he supports global warming.
* He claimed in 2004 that the NOAA’s satellite and balloon data has shown no significant warming, in contradiction to the NOAA’s stated results at the time which show exactly that.
Frankly, Inhofe doesn’t have a greast track record when it comes to honesty on this issue. Even if he is right about this UN group accepting money in order to produce politically-acceptable results, he has done little to address scientific consensus. (The American Geophysical Union alone — with 50,000 earth, ocean, and atmospheric scientists, along with some others — have maintained anthropogenic causes for global warming since 2003.)
John: “Ever hear of something called “The Florida Skunk Ape”?
My dad and uncle both saw one of those one night when they were young men[grin].” I learned to hunt in the Florida Everglades as a teen. We use to go hunting off Loop Road off the Tamiami Trail. My friends and I built a Swamp Buggy out of an old 1952 International Pick up truck. Someone gave us some used airplane tires which we welded up some rims so that the tires could be fitted onto the truck. We called our machine Tough Screws because we had a heck of time taking some bolts off to remove the back tool box.
Anyway, I recall seeing several Skunk Apes late in the evening after a hunt. I could smell them too. Whew they sure do stink. What is amazing is that I never saw them while sober and their smell was reminisent of deer unrine we used on our boot pads to hide our scent. I’m not sure which smelled worse the urine pads on our boots or our arm pits after several days without a bath. If human scent scares deer, they should have come flocking to us. Maybe that is why I never saw a Skunk Ape, our smell was too much for them.
MattF: “he has done little to address scientific consensus.” Since when has science based itself on concensus? I though science was based on provable fact. If it was based on consensus we would still be studying a geocentric solar system, and Faraday would never have been able to prove his theories of magnitism as it relates to electricity.
Besides the Global Warming issue is not about one man in politics. Maybe you should read a bit more about what others have uncovered. Let me add that there are people waiting in the wings to make hundreds of billions of dollars should the US adopt climate change legislation. Goldman Sachs and Al Gore will rake in billions setting up the sale and the derivatives that will go along with them based on carbon credits. The government will have another source of revenues as the American people are taxed through high energy costs.
This isn’t politics my friend this is the enslavement of the American people to the benefit of a few who are greedy for power and wealth. Do not for a minute believe that these people have not been involved in the greatest scam ever perpetrated on a Society.
I suggest you study up on the Whole Climate Change scandal that I am sure will be swept under the rug…the media will not cover it…as the politicians and the politically connected do everything in their power to shove the legislation through. If the data fed to the The American Geophysical Union was tainted then their conclusions are also tainted. The whole thing smells.
Good heavens how many Useful Idiots are out there? God help US.
Here is part of what Delingpole wrote:
“When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.
MattF, here is the ling to Delingpole’s article in the UK: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Here is another piece people might find interesting on the subject of man made climate change:
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].”
Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that “scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ ” Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming “to hide the decline.” Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann’s past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.
There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and, “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?”
In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
What’s the old saying, “Garbage in Garbage out.” Except this Garbage will destroy the US economy faster than the Fed can print the gazillions of dollars it is going to bring into existence.
But here is the most frightening story:
Obama says ’step closer’ to climate deal
US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved “one step closer” to a “strong operational agreement” on climate change at next month’s Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=TX-PAR-MWN76&show_article=1
You can believe that the Chinese will not destroy their vibrant economy just satisfy Barak Obama’s obscession with Climate Change. What part of stuff it does he not understand.
Mike post 39,
Cute Mike[snicker, snicker]. I am VERY familiar with Loop Road. I sometimes fish from it.
Were ARE you, exactly? Are you down here in southern Florida somewhere? If so then perhaps we can meet one another some day. I know some great restaurants in Miami, unless you would prefer a good home cooked country meal[smile].
Hey John, I left Florida in 1969 and moved to NC. I’ve lived everywhere from the Piedmont to the Mountains. I do visit Fla. every now and then. Nice to know you are familiar with Loop. There use to be a restaurant where Loop came back out onto Tamiami trail on the west side. As I recall they had a little zoo in the back to treat the tourist bus that would stop by their.
I’ll never forget the time we found an Indigo snake and took it back to the little bus stop. Tom, one of my friends stuffed the snake (about 4 feet long) in his shirt, then we went in and sat down to order. There were some travelers that had stopped to eat. You should have seen the look on their faces when the snake started to slide out of Tom’s shirt. Juan, my best friend cried you, “Hey Tom, isn’t that the snake you ate?” Needless to say the proprietor asked us to take the snake outside, whereby we turned it loose.
On another occasion, Smitty (his name was James Smith, but no one believed him – a cop once stopped us and when Smitty produced his licence the police officer swore it was a fake. That was back in the days before one’s picture was on the license)…now where was I….Oh yes, Smitty had just killed a huge gobbler. We were walking back to our car when Smitty got this great idea. When he saw some cars coming he started rolling around on the side of the road with the dead turkey as if the turkey was attacking him. We nearly caused an accident.
The fondest memory I have of the Loop was the first time I went out there hunting with my friends. First I got lost and spent the day trying to find my way out. When I got back to camp, which was at a rock pit that had a fairly large mound of dirt piled up next to it. My friends wanted to go swimming and they told me to stand guard on the dirt mound since gators were close by. Of course there were no gators. So after sitting up on top of the mound with my Winchester 30/30 I began to realize that they were pulling my leg. So I stood up and started shouting gator, gator and fired a few rounds as if I were trying to hit a swimming gator. They piled out of that rock pit buck naked and I was laughing myself silly as I watched them scamble onto the shore. Of course they then tackled me and threw me into the water in the only clothes I had. I had to sit by the fire with a blanket around me while my clothes dried. It did not matter though as we were blasted by 9 PM.
I’ve been sitting here laughing at these very fond memories of my wild youth. BTW, my friends were all 4 or 5 years older than me. I was the baby in the group, but to tell you the truth, I was the only one with any sense. Whenever I knew it was time to drive home, I made sure I had nothing to drink. I was 16 when I first started drinking. I was fun for a while but later led to many problems. I used it as an escape. It cost me dearly….nearly my life.
It was the Lord that pulled me out of that pit.
John, thanks for the offer. I love good ole fashion country cooking. My favorite Thanksgiving meal is pinto beans and corn bread. The family thinks I’m nuts, but they like the fact that it leaves more left over turkey for them. As I tell people, I am really a very simple person. I once bought a brand new motor home and used it extensively with my first wife. I actually bought it for her as she had fought cancer for 9 years then was diagnosed as terminal. After she died I sold the motor home and went back to my tent camping. I use to back pack quite a bit, but haven’t recently due to aging bones. I still like to go on hikes in the woods though and will spend the better part of the day hiking some of the trails at the nearby state parks. My current wife isn’t much for hiking, but she goes sometimes to humor me. My dog, Jazz is my trusty companion. He goes everywhere I go….he really is my buddy, and proof that a dog is man’s best friend.
And I am glad for you that you were able to get up out of that pit of self destruction[smile]. Not everyone can.
Yeah, you left Florida a loooong time before I came onto the scene[I wasn't even born until 1975]. That restaurant is still there. I almost never eat there though just because it’s rather expensive[to fleece the tourists and city folk, I guess.] and I usually have good food waiting for me at home anyways.
I wouldn’t DARE swim anywhere in the Everglades, save but within someones above-ground pool!
My father recently bought ME a 30.30 Winchester Rifle for Christmas[He thinks I don't know about it. Mental note: Remember to act surprised.], but I do almost all of my hunting with my old Remington TargetMaster single-shot .22 rifle. Well, I DID do most of my hunting with that gun anyway, until I got my most favorite new toy in the whole world, my Digital Camera, and I now I hunt most of the wildlife with that[smile].
Mike: MattF: “he has done little to address scientific consensus.” Since when has science based itself on concensus?
It doesn’t, at least not in the long run. But in the meantime, a lot of data has been gathered, and attempts at reasonable conclusions based on it have been made. Any new ideas that come to the table must, at a minimum, address these data. Ideally, it would also address why the current consensus is mistaken.
Mike: I though science was based on provable fact.
You thought wrong. Science is based on data, and explanations that must be able to explain those data. These explanations are not ever considered “proven”, though it’s possible to falsify explanations.
Mike: Besides the Global Warming issue is not about one man in politics.
No kidding. That’s why it amuses me that you were trying to convince us by using a political site.
It’s also an indication that one should be cautious about accepting data presented when it’s being presented by a politician who has been known to lie on the issue in order to support his stance.
Mike: Maybe you should read a bit more about what others have uncovered.
I’m willing to bet that I’ve read a lot more than you, and a lot closer to the source. But that’s irrelevant. What matters is what agrees with the data, Mike, not who’s arguing or how much they’ve read.
Mike: Let me add that there are people waiting in the wings to make hundreds of billions of dollars should the US adopt climate change legislation.
There are also people who stand to keep or make fortunes if the U.S. does not adopt climate change legislation. Besides, as you point out, this isn’t a political matter. What matters is what agrees with fact, not who stands to profit.
Mike: If the data fed to the The American Geophysical Union was tainted then their conclusions are also tainted.
And they were all… what, exactly? Duped? In collecting their own data?
Mike: Our observing system is inadequate.
In what ways? How do you think it should be improved?
Let’s keep this to the data and evidence (not anecdotes) that show how some or all of it might have been altered; then we can assess who’s lying and who’s not before we get hip-deep in conspiracy theories with little basis and lots of emotionally-charged rhetoric.
What evidence do we have that, as you say, the Earth’s climate is cooling?
I just read post 47,
Why you’re welcome Mike. We are a very generous tribe of people, and now that Ferox is gone we can invite people over like never before. We had corn bread for dinner tonight with our fried catfish and rice[grin]. I have two hounds of questionable breed/s[ha, ha, I guess that just makes them "Americans" like the rest of us, eh?] but I constantly worry about them getting eaten by alligators or snake bitten.
In a (probably futile) effort to keep this on-topic, here is Kirk Cameron getting schooled by a UCLA student when he and Ray Comfort went there to pass out conveniently edited copies of Origin. The sound isn’t that good, but to anyone who knows what evolution actually posits, you can see how badly creationists distort the truth in order to make their side look good.
Thank you for the link MattF.
Mmmmmmmm….very….informative. I like how he kept stating “Yeah, I understand that” every time a student pointed out a flaw in his argument. And he said “I love science.” Who does THAT remind you of[smile]?
Poor man. If only Ray Comfort would have been right there with him then perhaps TOGETHER they could have kept cutting the young lady off with their constant rhetorical chatter and hypothetical/rhetorical questions until they suddenly ran out of time and had to go, or she gave up and went away, or something[grin].
MattF: “It doesn’t, at least not in the long run. But in the meantime, a lot of data has been gathered, and attempts at reasonable conclusions based on it have been made.”
It’s beginning to look like the data has been fabricated and some of the data that did not agree with preconceived notions has been omitted. Garbage in….Garbage out. Except this garbage will completely destroy an already weak economy.
Besides the whole global warming issue will be solved with peak oil. It arrived in 2005.
MattF: “No kidding. That’s why it amuses me that you were trying to convince us by using a political site.”
I also referenced others. The whole thing stinks. I knew it when some were claiming that the polar ice was shrinking “due to global warming.” The polar ice was shrinking but it was NOT due to Global Warming it was due to the Gulf Stream. When it flows faster the polar ice shrinks then when it slows back down polar ice builds back up. I think I learned that in either junior or senior high school science class.
Those that support the global warming crowd are merely supporting those that would impoverish this nation to enrich a handful of greedy you fill in the blank, if I did it would have to be sensored. Right now I am asking God for forgiveness for what I am thinking.
You have no idea of the Billions of dollars a handful of people will make trading carbon credits and all at our expense. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS CAN SUPPORT THIS…..WHO?
MattF: “Science is based on data, and explanations that must be able to explain those data. ” The data must prove the hypothesis and other experiments must back up the original. I don’t have the fancy language, I just know that science is not based on consensus. Politics is but not science.
MattF: “There are also people who stand to keep or make fortunes if the U.S. does not adopt climate change legislation. Besides, as you point out, this isn’t a political matter. What matters is what agrees with fact, not who stands to profit.”
Who will profit if climate change data is not accepted? The oil companies. These people provide a service. Finding and drilling for oil is hard work and risky. Goldman Sachs has already said that carbon credits will be the biggest commodity trading market in the world. These people will make fortunes trading paper, and the derivatives that go with it.
You do know MattF, that it was derivatives that led to this financial crisis. I know life must be good in your ivory tower where you do not have to get your hands dirty or work till your back aches like most people. This is why you can pontificate so eloquently while your fellow man loses his job, his home, and in some cases his family.
John: “I constantly worry about them getting eaten by alligators or snake bitten.”
I’d worry more about the snakes. I use to hunt around Clewiston, north of Lake O. Man that place was full of rattlers…big ones. It was in Clewiston that I first ate Gopher turtle. I remember munching on some as we passed through Bean City. As I recall I saw the sign that said Welcome to Bean City then the Sign that said “Bean City Limits” but I never saw Bean City.
Corn break and catfish…..now that makes my mouth water.
Mike,
So the mentality that refutes that gold and silver are money, and electronic currency produced to infinity is actually worth something and will remain a stable measure of value is the same mentality that tries to refute evolution. Correct? And in your opinion these people who refute these economic facts and attempt to refute evolution are stupid. Right? Correct me if I’m wrong.
While you’re in an insulting mood? When are you ever not in an insulting mood? I don’t think I could stand all the peace and tranquility faith in Jesus Christ has put in your life in mine. I didn’t tell anyone that he or she or anyone else was anything that could be inferred in other words as stupid. I don’t know how I could be the pot calling the kettle black. That’s your deal. You and the other fundamentalists on this blog are very rude and obviously angry, frustrated, miserable people. To what should I attribute that do you think?
Mike: The data must prove the hypothesis and other experiments must back up the original.
Actually, in science, we try to disprove the accepted ideas as quickly as possible. It’s only in this way that knowledge progresses, since science cannot “prove” the truth; it can only eliminate error.
Mike: I don’t have the fancy language,
Yet, oddly, you feel qualified to pontificate on these matters, even to the point of claiming to know better than those who are educated in the field, understand it more deeply than you or I, and are better equipped to detect error, both in background knowledge and direct experience, than either you or I. So far, all I’ve seen are accusations; show me which data disagrees with reality, and why reality agrees with your explanation of things.
Mike: I just know that science is not based on consensus.
You seem to be confusing scientific consensus with popular opinion. The scientific consensus attempts to take into account all relevant experiments and discoveries, and any new explanation must also be able to explain these. It’s not enough just to disagree with current ideas. It’s not even enough to sling accusations of impropriety. What matters is what explanations happen to agree with fact. If you feel that you have a different explanation of the facts, it is up to you to devise an experiment to determine which explanation is consistent with reality (usually by assessing the implications of each one and determining which implication is consistent with your experiment).
Mike: You have no idea of the Billions of dollars a handful of people will make trading carbon credits and all at our expense.
Once again, Mike, you are dragging politics into this. This is supposed to be a scientific matter, where ideas stand or fall based on fact, not on who stands to profit. If your explanation is to hold water, it must show itself consistent with data. Why do you say the Earth is cooling? Why do you say the ice caps are melting because of the Gulf Stream (do you have a reference outside of memories of school that show predictions and measurements we can compare against reality?), and do your projections show that this will be a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing as far as climates we know and use for things like agriculture, and why?
Mike: It’s beginning to look like the data has been fabricated and some of the data that did not agree with preconceived notions has been omitted.
I know that’s your claim. Where are the real data, as well as the guiding principles for knowing which data to accept and which data to reject?
Mike: Finding and drilling for oil is hard work and risky.
So is developing new technologies and new ways to create and store energy. Or do you honestly believe there’s no hard work and no risk there?
Mike: I know life must be good in your ivory tower where you do not have to get your hands dirty or work till your back aches like most people.
Which only goes to show how well you understand what I do.
Mike: This is why you can pontificate so eloquently while your fellow man loses his job, his home, and in some cases his family.
Oh, that’s why, is it? It must be nice to be able to dismiss ideas with which you disagree so handily, without the benefit of evidence, basis, or even rationale. You don’t have to show any facts — just accuse other people of deep character flaws and disconnection from real human concerns when you have no idea how they live their lives, what they do, or whether or not they struggle financially, relationally, or vocationally. Asking questions and demanding rigorous answers has nothing to do with an attempt to find the truth, at least not to you. Your deliberate attempts to impugn anyone who disagrees with you are more transparent than you seem to think, and are dragging in the very politics you claim to understand that science attempts to avoid.
John
I’ve heard stories, but i’m skeptical. I have a Beagle, and I call him skunk ape all the time.
Gurgus: “So the mentality that refutes that gold and silver are money, and electronic currency produced to infinity is actually worth something and will remain a stable measure of value is the same mentality that tries to refute evolution. Correct?”
WRONG, it is not the same mentality, it’s worse…..it goes so far beyone stupid it cannot be measured. The person that refutes evolution does not in any way impact their lives or the lives of their loved ones, or the lives of their fellow citizens. The person that rejects gold and silver as money puts all those in jeopardy as the end game of all fiat currencies is economic misery in the form of hyperinflation and economic depression. Now remember what I told you Gurgus, keep all those paper and electonic dollars close to your vest, you will need them……..if toilet paper runs out, you can always use those hundrend dollar bills.
One more thing, the fabulous US dollar just made a new yearly low at 74.39 and is currently at 74.44. In the meantime that ancient relic, Gold made another new yearly high of $1183, and is now at $1180. Does anyone out there have an clue as to the implications of the above FACTS?
MattF: ” Where are the real data, as well as the guiding principles for knowing which data to accept and which data to reject?”
The news story implies…suggests….indicates that data was manipulated and omitted. Is that not enough to discredit the entire research project? If I am doing an experiment which calls for distilled water, and chemical X, and I use tap water and chemical Y does that not invalidate my conclusions? If I am recording temperatures in a county and place 95% of my thermometers in the hottest part of the city, then compare them to readings taken 40 years before when the city was smaller and only 35% of the readings were from the inner city can I accurate conclude that global temperatures are rising.
I gave you the example that the melting of polar ice is more closely tied to the Gulf Stream and it flow than to global temperature change, yet the “scientist”, like Al Gore, say it is a sign of global warming.
Back when we had an increase in the number and severety of hurricanes, the Global Warming crowd were blaming it on Climate change, when in fact there are cycles (generally running about 30 years) of severe / numerous hurricanes and mild / infrequent hurricanes.
The heating and cooling of the earth has been going on for thousands / millions of years. Some of these cycles have been when there were no humans on the planet.
It is quite a leap to say that even if there were global warming, which I doubt, it is most likely that it is just part of a global cycle.
Here in NC we know that our coast was 50 miles further east as recently as 20,000 years ago. It is basically unchanged since Europeans arrived in 1585. In other words most of the land lost was during the first 19,500 years, and not a recent event.
To implement a 30% tax increase on energy to combat a threat that is at best questionable and even if it were true we could do very little about, is totally insane. You do not have to be a scientist to understand the faulty logic in what our politicians are proposing…..the destruction of the US economy.
MattF: “So is developing new technologies and new ways to create and store energy. Or do you honestly believe there’s no hard work and no risk there?”
Why don’t you try to get it right instead of pulling the LEFTY slight of hand by distorting what others say that disagree with you. I NEVER ONCE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. As a matter of fact I am one of its biggest proponents and believe it will save humanities bacon…literally. You know that as several of my messages have been on the need for alternatives and HOW OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOW WORKING TOWARDS PREVENTING ITS DEVELOPMENT. For example, you cannot have electric cars or efficient wind turbines without Rare Earth Elements, yet current laws (permitting process / environmental studies) make EXCESSIVELY difficult and expensive to open a mine in America. The US is 100% dependent on China for its REEs and China has already stated that by 2013 they will no longer be exporting these elements. So where are we going to get them? China controls 97% of that market, leaving 3% for the rest of the world.
No REEs means no reliable storage batteries and no magnets powerful enough to run the needed electric motors and generators. Basically, you cannot run a modern efficient economy without REEs. If proposed mining legislation passes, it will shut down exploration and new mining projects. When it comes to economic development you cannot separate the science and the politics.
Now where was I….oh yes, I SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED TRADING IN CARBON CREDITS AND DID NOT SAY A WORD ABOUT PEOPLE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY. Not a word. I did however….now pay attention MattF as intellectuals have a habit of drifting off into their own world of academia, not only did I mention the trading in carbon credits but also mentioned the OTC derivatives that would be part of the game plan to make these people fabulously weathy for doing nothing more than creating more financial weapons of mass destruction. I even said it was these derivatives that brought on this financial crisis.
You deliberately distorted……..no you lied about what I had stated. Of course you had to do this because otherwise you would have to deal with the issue at hand, which is of course that Climate Change / Global Warming is probably more of a political issue with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake than it is a SCIENCE issue. The evidence is all there. Al Gore is scheduled to be the first Carbon Credit Billionaire.
Mike no one can or will ever refute evolution. The people who try are the laughingstock of the entire world.
MattF: “Oh, that’s why, is it? It must be nice to be able to dismiss ideas with which you disagree so handily, without the benefit of evidence, basis, or even rationale. You don’t have to show any facts ”
I don’t show facts????? On issues which I know little about, I remain relatively silent, but on issues I do know a great deal about I give all the evidence in the world to support my opinions.
You on the other hand are a nit picker….a pointy headed intellectual that revels in the debate rather than dealing with practical issues. No I have nothing against intellectual debates, but there is a time and place for them, just as there is a time and place for reason and action. You cannot seem to differentiate between the two. In your mind, everything boils down to an intellectual debate.
As for facts, my record speaks for itself. Back in early August I began 130 day count down to the US dollar. At the time I said this winter would be very cold for the USD and by Thanksgiving it would be coming under pressure. At the time the USD was over 79 and now it is under 75 and making new yearly lows each and every week. I also said in May that Gold would bottom in June then proceed to strengthen into the end of the year. This was when most precious metals analysts were calling for a sharp pull back in gold. When gold broke above $1000 on the third hit at that resistence, the precious metals analysts….and most market gurus….were saying it would not hold that level. 71% of the newsletter writers were calling for a drop to $850 and the market gurus were claiming that gold was in a bubble, while I was saying that gold would never again in my lifetime fall below $1000.
What I did is take FACTS, which I have presented on these message boards, then used these FACTS to project FUTURE OUTCOMES. And lo and behold, I have been 100% right….Yet you have the audacity to say that all I do is engage in personal attacks.
You know MattF, if a man needlessly kills another human being, I call him a murderer. If a man breaks into anothers house and steals, I call him a thief. If a man gives generously to the poor I call him a philanthropist. If my next door neighbor takes out my garbage because I forgot to do it, I call him a good neighbor. Now I do use some harsh words for those that deny reality (like the impact of the falling dollar on society, or the debt that is growing exponentially, or the fact that the economy continues to sink even as the government spends -Keynesian economics is flawed), engage in pure intellectual debate 100% of the time, and do not seem to care what happens to the nation or even his children and grandchildren.
My problem with you and why I call you a pointy headed intellectual is due to the lack of evidence you present that indicates you even have a heart. I am a logical reasoned individual that weeps for his nation. I’ve seen it before and have had person experience with the promises of politicians whose only goal was to enrich and empower themselves. Anyone that has fled a Communist country will tell you the same. These people come to power with all sorts of promises and are supported by the masses. In the end the masses are enslaved, but when they realize they have been duped it is too late. In the mean time the pointy headed intellectuals deal with frivolous discussions that have no basis in reality. For example: On paper the Great Society looked like a good idea, but in the end it destroyed families, pushed inflation higher, and basically made things worse for the poor. More money for education sounds good and it should improve our schools but year after year the US spends more per student on education than almost any other nation and year after year our schools fall in performance. Government control healthcare sounds good, but I do not have faith in a government that each year loses over $30 billion in medicare, which is only a fraction of what a government run program would be. Finally the Keynesian model sounds great, government intervenes in the market to smooth out the economic cycle by using fiscal / monetary policy, but in truth it is fatally flawed. It foundation is based on the notion that saving and investing do not create wealth, spending and debt do. For proof just look at what every administration (Democrat and Republican) has done to stimulate the economy. The Keynesians rule the halls of academia and more important they are the chief architechs of our economy. It all sounds good, but just like poison served up in a chocolate cake may taste good, it is still poison.
MattF, you love to drink the Koolaide.
Matt,
Beautiful deconstruction of Mike’s mindless yammering. I gave him a good one on the heaven thread too.
Or maybe it was the alien one, I forget.
Gurgus: “Mike no one can or will ever refute evolution. The people who try are the laughingstock of the entire world.”
And your point? I’ve never entered the discussion on evolution as I have stated, I am agnositic on this subject and it does not interest me. I do believe that there have been and are political movements that bastardize Darwin to justify their own murderous tendencies.
Evolution, the big bang, the creation process is something Christians debate, but it is not something that divides us. There are 4 or 5 doctrines that a Christian must agree on to be a true Christian and evolution or the process / timing of creation is not one of them.
But then again, even the most brilliant scientists disagree on the same subject. Contrary to your delusional mind there are scientist that are devout Christians. My niece, for example, has a post doctorate in chemistry, is currently working in the research devision of Proctor and Gamble, and she is a devout Christian.
Oh, and while I am at it MattF, she does not believe in man made climate change, although she admits that climate is not her area of expertise. That said, she has discussed the issue with others in the field and more than just a few have never been convinced of man made climate change. Most are not even convinced there is any significant global warming.
MattF I saw the term “Climategate” used yesterday. Very appropriate. Wouldnt your post 51 apply to climate changers? I can tell this massive hoax is hurting you. Keep trying to dig them out. Remember – consensus! And keep in mind, science was self correcting here, but only when corrected by those with a different view than the hoaxers. Cover it up!
Mike: The news story implies…suggests….indicates that data was manipulated and omitted. Is that not enough to discredit the entire research project?
By itself, no, it isn’t. And even if we take these accusations as true, it’s not (by itself) enough to discredit the general scientific understanding of the matter.
Mike: If I am doing an experiment which calls for distilled water, and chemical X, and I use tap water and chemical Y does that not invalidate my conclusions?
Of course. But your scenario is very different from the implication or the suggestion that you used tap water and chemical Y.
Mike: If I am recording temperatures in a county and place 95% of my thermometers in the hottest part of the city, then compare them to readings taken 40 years before when the city was smaller and only 35% of the readings were from the inner city can I accurate conclude that global temperatures are rising.
That depends. How are you correcting for the difference in environment? What evidence do you have that your correction methods should be considered consistent with reality?
Perhaps more important to your stance in real life, what evidence do you have that these corrections have not been made or are inadequate?
The evidence for global warming is not limited to thermometers. Surface thermometers yield only one data set. What we are trying to arrive at is an explanation consistent with all the data, not entertaining the fantasy that rhetoric against one or a few lines of inquiry will call the entire explanation to collapse.
It’s not enough just to doubt, Mike. You need to show what the real data is, exactly where and how currently-accepted data got it wrong (and how you know), and why your data should be accepted. Do you honestly think climatologists completely forgot to allow for differences in the immediate environment? If so, why didn’t some other climatologist notice this oversight and use the opportunity to better his own standing?
(In point of fact, I happen to know that corrections were made. If your argument on this front is to hold water, you need to show why these corrections are spurious.)
Mike: I gave you the example that the melting of polar ice is more closely tied to the Gulf Stream and it flow than to global temperature change, yet the “scientist”, like Al Gore, say it is a sign of global warming.
I remember. Where is your data that shows that this is what’s happening as we speak?
(I have my own issues with Gore. Let’s leave politics out of this and stick to the facts. I’m still waiting for them; you’ve offered some interesting conjectures, but no data.)
Mike: Back when we had an increase in the number and severety of hurricanes, the Global Warming crowd were blaming it on Climate change, when in fact there are cycles (generally running about 30 years) of severe / numerous hurricanes and mild / infrequent hurricanes.
Where is your data on these regular cycles, and evidence that what we are seeing is measurably consistent with them?
You’re giving me a lot of just-so stories, Mike. Anecdotes are not data. Science hinges on data.
Mike: The heating and cooling of the earth has been going on for thousands / millions of years. Some of these cycles have been when there were no humans on the planet.
Yes. But what data do you have about these heating and cooling cycles, and what is your evidence that what we currently see is consistent with those?
Mike: It is quite a leap to say that even if there were global warming, which I doubt, it is most likely that it is just part of a global cycle.
On what data do you base this claim? On what basis do you say “most likely”?
Mike: Here in NC we know that our coast was 50 miles further east as recently as 20,000 years ago. It is basically unchanged since Europeans arrived in 1585. In other words most of the land lost was during the first 19,500 years, and not a recent event.
What caused this early loss of land? How related is it to the issue of climate change? (Hint: It’s not even part of the models being proposed that any given region near an ocean must lose more coastal area than they’ve ever lost in the last 20,000 years to climate change.)
Mike: To implement a 30% tax increase on energy to combat a threat that is at best questionable and even if it were true we could do very little about, is totally insane. You do not have to be a scientist to understand the faulty logic in what our politicians are proposing…..the destruction of the US economy.
And, once again, Mike, you are dragging politics into this, which you have pointed out that a scientific understanding attempts to avoid.
Mike: MattF: “So is developing new technologies and new ways to create and store energy. Or do you honestly believe there’s no hard work and no risk there?”
Why don’t you try to get it right instead of pulling the LEFTY slight of hand by distorting what others say that disagree with you. I NEVER ONCE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.
True. But you were obviously trying to draw a contrast between people who acquire fossil fuels and… something else. What, then, was that something else? Feel free to set me straight.
Mike: now pay attention MattF as intellectuals have a habit of drifting off into their own world
… says the person who insists that science is not defined by politics, but who keeps dragging politics into an ostensibly scientific discussion.
Project much?
Mike: Of course you had to do this because otherwise you would have to deal with the issue at hand,
… says the person who can’t seem to deal with the issue at hand: being consistent with actual data, and making sure that we know what the truth is based on real-world information.
This isn’t the tactic of someone who’s right and has the facts on their side, Mike. This is the tactic of someone who knows he has nothing to prove his claims beyond a collection of anecdotes collected from secondary sources. Please, for the love of Pete, stick to the subject.
Mike: which is of course that Climate Change / Global Warming is probably more of a political issue with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake than it is a SCIENCE issue.
Your accusation is that the scientific consensus is wrong. That makes it a science issue. If science is being wrongly used as an excuse to steer politics and the economy in the wrong direction, it must be shown what the right scientific direction is. Regardless of the amount of money that threatens to move about and who might happen to get their hands on it, science — done right — ought to be able to winnow out error and show which explanation is consistent with fact; so if you see this as a problem, it would be far better to destroy this problem at the root instead of bemoaning the symptoms.
Show me your facts.
Mike: The evidence is all there. Al Gore is scheduled to be the first Carbon Credit Billionaire.
Evidence that someone stands to get rich from a change in policy is not evidence that the policy is in error.
Mike: I don’t show facts?????
Nope. Where are your facts that show that I’m removed from concerns like family problems, financial struggles, or hard labor?
Mike: On issues which I know little about, I remain relatively silent, but on issues I do know a great deal about I give all the evidence in the world to support my opinions.
Show me some.
Mike: You on the other hand are a nit picker….a pointy headed intellectual that revels in the debate rather than dealing with practical issues.
Is this how you resolve truth? By attempting to insult your philosophical opponents?
Mike: No I have nothing against intellectual debates, but there is a time and place for them, just as there is a time and place for reason and action. You cannot seem to differentiate between the two. In your mind, everything boils down to an intellectual debate.
Again with the presumption to tell me what I think.
When it comes to matters of science, reason must come before action. Once there is good reason, action can be taken with confidence. This is especially true in matters where intuition and even “common sense” can potentially lead us to the wrong action. We must act based on a consistent understanding of the facts, not on ideas about how a particular data set might be mistaken, or on predictions about who stands to make money, or on as-yet-unverified information recalled from one’s pre-collegiate education.
Obviously, neither reason nor action can stand on its own, but it should be obvious to a civilized and compassionate human being which one should commonly rule the other. Show me good data — not anecdotes, not guesses about why things might be mistaken — that requires me to re-think, and my actions will follow.
Mike: My problem with you and why I call you a pointy headed intellectual is due to the lack of evidence you present that indicates you even have a heart.
You, who insults anyone who disagrees with you at every turn, are upset about the lack of evidence that I have no heart? An interesting stance to take, given the voluminous positive evidence (as indicated by your repeated and frequent directed verbal abuse of your opponents on this site) that you lack compassion for your fellow man.
Besides, what relevance does this have to determining the truth or falsehood of the subject at hand?
We’ve been talking about establishing an explanation based on the evidence, Mike. How I feel about it is irrelevant to the topic, and might be seen by some as crass manipulation (as, frankly, some might see your accusations against me on this level). Regardless, ultimately, I must do what is right, not what feels right. This is something I will stick to, whether you have a “problem with” me or not.
When we understand the truth of the matter, we can assess the proper way to deal with it, and determine what we can do about perceived political injustices. You seem to presume that we can find the right way to act without knowing the direction we ought to pursue.
Bob Griffin: Wouldnt your post 51 apply to climate changers?
It might. What data have you got? Or are you also stuck with empty accusations?
Bob Griffin: I can tell this massive hoax is hurting you.
You can?
What’s it like in your world?
I’m not “hurt”. I just have high standards when it comes to the truth on scientific matters, and require more evidence than a little mudslinging to change my mind. If it turns out that climate change is wrong, I won’t be upset in the slightest.
MattF What empty accusations? Were talking about emails from the perpetrating hoaxers. You wont be upset that SCIENCE has scammed you?
Bob Griffin: What empty accusations? Were talking about emails from the perpetrating hoaxers.
Yes. But they’re empty accusations against the theory until data come to light — that is, these actions may be ethically reprehensible, but conclusions about the general idea they were trying to support must be weighed in light of observable fact, not simply rejected on account of an instance of wrongdoing. Feel free to produce some data if you like, though.
Bob Griffin: You wont be upset that SCIENCE has scammed you?
It’s not science that would have “scammed me”; it would be people. Ultimately, if their data is bad and their conclusions erroneous, it is science that will show them to be so. Science is how we find error and falsehood in explanations relating to the natural Universe.
These people wouldn’t be the first to perpetrate false data under the banner of science, and I can guarantee that they won’t be the last. The strength of science is that falsehood will eventually come to light if one is patient. But one must also be reasonable enough to understand the difference between a group’s misrepresentation of certain facts and the undermining of a scientific theory. If it turns out that this is the beginning of the latter, I would rejoice in the revelation of the truth and the exciting and intriguing incentive to find a real consistent explanation. If it turns out that this is nothing but the former, I would rejoice that these people were stopped in their attempt to mislead, but level-headed enough to know that the reprehensible acts of a few do not have to upset all of human understanding whenever they are uncovered.
Either way, not upset. Time will tell.
A disscusion between the professor and his student
“You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”
“Yes sir,” the student says.
“So you believe in God?”
“Absolutely.”
“Is God good?”
“Sure! God’s good.”
“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”
“Yes.”
“Are you good or evil?”
“The Bible says I’m evil.”
The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”
“Yes sir, I would.”
“So you’re good…!”
“I wouldn’t say that.”
“But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.”
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”
The student remains silent.
“No, you can’t, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
“Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”
“Er…yes,” the student says.
“Is Satan good?”
The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. “No.”
“Then where does Satan come from?”
The student falters. “From God”
“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?”
“Yes.”
“So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”
Again, the student has no answer. “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”
The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”
“So who created them?”
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. “Who created them?” There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues onto another student. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”
The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor, I do.”
The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”
“No sir. I’ve never seen Him.”
“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”
“No, sir, I have not.”
“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?”
“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”
“Yet you still believe in him?”
“Yes.”
“According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?”
“Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”
“Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. “Professor, is there such thing as heat?”
“Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”
“And is there such a thing as cold?”
“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”
“No sir, there isn’t.”
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.”
“Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
“What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?”
“Yes,” the professor replies without hesitation. “What is night if it isn’t darkness?”
“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.”
“In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. “So what point are you making, young man?”
“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”
The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. “Flawed? Can you explain how?”
“You are working on the premise of duality,” the student explains. “You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.”
“It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.”
“Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”
“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”
“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
“To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.”
The student looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out into laughter.
“Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”
“So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?”
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.”
“Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,” the student continues. “Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?”
Now uncertain, the professor responds, “Of course, there is. We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
Cute story. A bit misleading in places, but cute.
Anonymous: “Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
What about those who have seen it with their own eyes, and who demonstrate its existence with repeatable experiments?
Anonymous: Evil is simply the absence of God.
An interesting idea, but a trifle incomplete, it would seem. Can one really choose to be absent from God, the way that darkness is the absence of light or cold is the absence of heat?
It is also not the case that science is restricted to only the directly observable. Inferences must be based on them, yes, but the whole power of science lies in explanatory theory, which by its very nature cannot be drawn after examining every possibility. Astronomy, in particular, would be a very dead area of study if science were restricted to the directly observable.
So even though no one has seen magnetism, one can demonstrate under which circumstances it appears (and how much of it), form cogent explanations about what’s going on, and then go about attempting to falsify those explanations. This, in a nutshell, is one of the reasons science is so powerful; it rigorously demonstrates the existence of things that our senses cannot perceive and which our best imagination might not even have guessed at. It’s the best tool we currently have for examining God’s creation and how it works. (And while it’s true that science does not “fully understand” science or magnetism, it makes no claim to; in fact, it makes no claim to “fully understand” anything.)
Finally, the story fails to distinguish between inference drawn upon repeated observation and known phenomena (establishing the existence of the professor’s brain) and inference that must be made in the absence of empiricism (faith in the Bible, God, and Jesus as Messiah).
MattF: And while it’s true that science does not “fully understand” science or magnetism
Whoops. Make that “… electricity or magnetism”.
MattF: “I’m not “hurt”. I just have high standards when it comes to the truth on scientific matters, and require more evidence than a little mudslinging to change my mind. If it turns out that climate change is wrong, I won’t be upset in the slightest.
” So where is the incredible suffering that will be imposed on the vast majority of Americans should legislation be passed on a science that is now questionable….the data has been or may have been tainted.
But hey what difference does it make if the a 30% increase in energy leads to a slowing economy and people are forced out of the homes and lose their jobs. And all for what? Even if the Climate Change gang is right, how much can we reduce the earth temp. over the next 50 years by passing these draconian measure? 2 degrees, 1 degree?
All you ever think about is the science and to —- with the impact on human beings.
Mike: So where is the incredible suffering that will be imposed on the vast majority of Americans should legislation be passed on a science that is now questionable….the data has been or may have been tainted.
The science is not rendered questionable because of the unethical behavior of one group claiming to present scientific findings.
Yes, their data may have been tainted, but you fail to understand the difference between bad reports and the undermining of our understanding.
Mike: But hey what difference does it make if the a 30% increase in energy leads to a slowing economy and people are forced out of the homes and lose their jobs.
I never claimed that it wouldn’t make a difference. Scientific understanding is not determined by political or social impact. You yourself acknowledged this. Stop trying to pretend that it is.
Mike: Even if the Climate Change gang is right, how much can we reduce the earth temp. over the next 50 years by passing these draconian measure? 2 degrees, 1 degree?
The amount would be small, yes, but if our understanding is correct, it only needs to be a little bit. Global warming is only concerned about the increase of the average temperature of the planet by a few degrees.
Mike: All you ever think about is the science and to —- with the impact on human beings.
Yes, I know that’s your claim. Why the obsession with telling other people what they think and how they feel?
Ultimately, acting in accordance with the way reality actually is, and not as we would like it to be, will be better insurance against calamity. Once again, your arguments have done nothing to attempt to bring truth to the table.
MattF: “Of course. But your scenario is very different from the implication or the suggestion that you used tap water and chemical Y.”
The great nitpicker at work. My point was garbage in garbage out. If the data has been misrepresented or if contractory data (data which disproved global warming) omitted then the results are tainted. The whole thing is a fraud. Who would want to perpetrate such a fraud? The people that stand to make billions upon billions of dollars trading carbon credits and the OTC derivatives which will surely be manufactured.
What really gets me about you is that I will admit that when it comes to science I fall into the laymans class. I consider myself as having no more than an elementary knowledge of most science. I am, you might call igorant on the subject. That said, I do know enough about geology to analyze drill results from mining companies and know which ones have potential to become actual mines. I know enough about renewable energy to know that you cannot have wind projects and electric cars without Rare Earth Elements. So when it comes to science I do not consider myself an expert and defer to others.
But I do have a great deal of common sense. I am a logical person and apply that logic to make sense of things. But most of all I do know my history (especially economic history), economics, markets, and politics. I know enough to realize that there are people that stand to get a great deal of power and make obscene amounts of money, while destroying the lives of millions of Americans.
This economy was brought about by such men, and they continue to hold the reigns of power.
I call you a pointy headed academic because you do not deal with the pain and suffering that will be caused by legislation like Cap and Trade or a climate change treaty that burdens our already struggling economy. YOU DO NOT SEEM TO CARE, because all you do is address the science. Not once, at least not that I can recall have you addressed my many statements of OTC derivatives or how Goldman Sach and Al Gore will make Billions by creating markets in carbon credits. I do not care that people make money so long as they operate within the law and are not hurtful to others. Cap and Trade will cause intense pain throughout the land while enriching some already powerful / wealthy people. Somehow this does not seem to bother you.
MattF: “When we understand the truth of the matter, we can assess the proper way to deal with it, and determine what we can do about perceived political injustices. You seem to presume that we can find the right way to act without knowing the direction we ought to pursue.”
You might find this hard to believe but I have been a proponent of much higher gasoline taxes in order to persuade people to conserve. Now, while I supported high gas taxes I also supported rebates to the people to make the tax revenue neutral. This way people, if they chose to spend the money on gasoline they could or if they chose to do something else with the extra money that could do that. The point would be to encourage public transportation and the development / improvement / expansion of our rail system. This would reduce liquid fuel use, reducing the carbon foot print, and most important deal with the peak oil crisis which is now on the horizon. Everyone wins and no one can make obscene fortunes while they bring on the greatest economic disaster in US history.
My anger at you is not just due to your pompousness…you know it all attitude, but it is your lack of heart for the suffering the Climate Change hoax will impose on the American people. You are right, it make me mad to think that any human being would not care about the implications of the the legislation / treaties our government will and is attempting to push through based on what will be questionable at best evidence. You sir have no heart…..and no mind for that matter. You are brilliant in your own mind, when in fact you are nothing more than a nit picker…..that you are good at.
It may interest some of you to know…oh MattF the great one and his sidekick Kash, that gold today hit a high of $1191 and the US dollar made another new low at 74.22. The US dollar is breaking down and breaking hard. 18 hours ago it was at 75.40. 3 trading days ago it was at 75.80. This morning it was at 75.
In terms of a currency this is a minicrash. We are now entering the all important 74 – 72 range of support. Should that fail the dollar is headed into the 60s with no real support until it hits 62.
We have the depression, thanks to government, and now we are in the process of triggering hyperinflation.
Gurgus and MattF, be sure to hang on to your dollars. Have faith in Tiny Tim Geithner, Helicopter Ben Bernanke, our beloved Congress and Administration that supports a strong dollar policy while adding to our tower of debt.
Be sure to support Cap and Trade so we can reduce the earth’s temperature by 1/2 degree over the next 50 years…maybe we can….then again we may be in for global cooling, as I recall the next ice age coming debate from my youth.
Some people are blind because they have lost their sight while some are blind due to their own chosing.
MattF What dont you get about the hoaxers? They made up FALSE info, making their info FALSE
OH, and before I forget another one of my predictions comes in right on schedule. I said that before Thanksgiving the USD would be coming under pressure.
Abc’s post 61,
Is your dog really that smelly[grin]?
Heh,…mine do. But then, I just bath them for fleas, not for cleanliness, as bathing them for cleanliness would be a waste of time as they spend the majority of their daytime hours outside in the yard anyway.
It’s good to be skeptical, and I too am skeptical. I only have the story of my dad and uncle to go by, and I’ll share it with you if you wish, but I’ve seen some really interesting and weird things, so the idea of some large, bipedal, Simians wandering around through the Sawgrass and Palmettos at night wouldn’t really strike me as that weird. If I saw one in my territory I’d first try and take some pictures[time and lighting permitting], and then I’d be like “HEY! HEY YOU! Don’t you step on MY watermelon vines with those feet! Unless you plan on doing some chores around here you can only have TWO melons and a few ears of corn and T H A T ‘S I T!!!”
“And were ARE those darned lazy hound dogs!?!?”
There’s this one man I know of who spends all of his spare time sitting up on a perch looking out over the wetlands hoping to see another one[says he once saw one out there].
And here’s something for everyone that I noticed within my latest issue of Discover Magazine;
Type in discovermagazine.com/web/8IDfails
What pops up will apologize and tell you that the page couldn’t be found, but that is the right spot. In the upper right corner is a section titled PHOTO, go in there and scroll down and for Mike, there’s a story about a tiny German village that has learned to run entirely on biomass and create an energy surplus, and for us evolutionists a story below it about the eight biggest failures of Intelligent Design.
Mike: My point was garbage in garbage out.
I know.
Mike: If the data has been misrepresented or if contractory data (data which disproved global warming) omitted then the results are tainted. The whole thing is a fraud.
If the results have been misrepresented, then the results are tainted. This does not demand or even imply that the question of whether or not there is anthropogenic global warming can now be definitively answered in the negative. Nor does the fact that some seem poised to earn a great deal from a given policy that accepts it as real.
Mike: But I do have a great deal of common sense. I am a logical person and apply that logic to make sense of things.
Then you ought to understand why I am so insistent upon rigor, and why your attempts to derail this conversation into political tirades and personal attacks are among the least logical tactics you can employ, especially after (rightly) pointing out that scientific conclusions should not depend on politics. You also ought to understand that logic and common sense are not the same thing, and that the latter will often lead us wrong when it comes to making decisions about how to handle the natural world, which is why appeals to data are necessary if error is to be avoided (along with the suffering that would come along with ignroing the way the natural world actually behaves).
Mike: I know enough to realize that there are people that stand to get a great deal of power and make obscene amounts of money, while destroying the lives of millions of Americans.
I haven’t denied that. If it turns out that anthropogenic global warming is still true in spite of the unethical actions of a single organization attempting to support it, however, still more stand to suffer, and much more deeply and dramatically.
Mike: I call you a pointy headed academic because you do not deal with the pain and suffering that will be caused by legislation like Cap and Trade or a climate change treaty that burdens our already struggling economy.
I can more adequately help with the pain and suffering once we establish what is consistent with the facts. As long as you continue to withhold those facts, you are withholding all reason to change strategies for dealing with those who will end up losing out when the natural effects of our action (or inaction) occur.
Attempting to stop suffering while adamantly refusing to address the cause of the suffering is foolhardy. If it turns out that a lot of people would suffer under global warming, and we do nothing to consider whether or not we should prevent it because of the unethical actions of a few, doesn’t that make us every bit as callous?
Mike: YOU DO NOT SEEM TO CARE, because all you do is address the science.
Because the science will tell us what is consistent with the facts and what kinds of policy we ought to consider realistic in light of it. It should be noted that even if anthropogenic global warming turns out to be real, that does not mean that our policy for dealing with it is wise or good, nor that it should remain in place unchanged.
Mike: Not once, at least not that I can recall have you addressed my many statements of OTC derivatives or how Goldman Sach and Al Gore will make Billions by creating markets in carbon credits.
Because that’s politics, and that’s irrelevant to the level of the discussion we’re having. You pointed that out yourself.
Mike: Somehow this does not seem to bother you.
I realize that’s your assertion. For some reason, making assertions like this in complete ignorance doesn’t seem to bother you. It’s remarkable that you’ve decided to take such an important topic — one that, as you’ve pointed out, has the power to cause suffering and pain — and used it as an excuse to carry out some kind of personally-directed vituperative tirade rather than demonstrate things you claim to know to be true in order to convince other people to join your cause. That doesn’t say much for your desire to solve problems, or for your senses of compassion or perspective if you’d rather insult one person (or a handful on a website) than direct people to greater understanding.
Bob Griffin: What dont you get about the hoaxers? They made up FALSE info, making their info FALSE
I get that. What you don’t seem to understand is that theirs isn’t the only data out there in support of anthropogenic global warming — not by a long shot. The discreditation of a particular group, even if it’s a fairly prominent group, does not automatically make all data gathered by all groups inconclusive, questionable, invented, or false.
MattF: “Then you ought to understand why I am so insistent upon rigor, and why your attempts to derail this conversation into political ”
This issue is poltical in that our President is headed for Copenhagen for the UN meeting on Climate Change. Between the President and the Democrat controlled Senate a treaty can be signed that basically puts the US economy into a box it cannot get out of. You seem to think that this whole thing is about science and science only. The debate is not about whether or not Pluto is a planet; it is about the fate of the US economy. President Obama has stated that he thinks the US should reduce carbon emissions by 17% within the next 7 years. How this is done is critical to what happens to our economy. You know about the economy don’t you. It is about how people feed, clothe, and house their families. Good Heavens man, climb out of that ivory tower and look around and see the suffering already taking place DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND WHAT IT HAS DONE. Is your heart so cold that all this does not matter. People don’t matter. The only thing that matters is making your scientific point. I feel like I am talking to a computer and not a human being.
MattF: “Because that’s politics, and that’s irrelevant to the level of the discussion we’re having. You pointed that out yourself.”
You are a computer aren’t you? You are a computer that cannot think outside of its programming. If you do not think these powerful people that have so much to gain along with the politicians that hold the purse strings on grants, are not tempted to influence the outcome to their benefit, then you do not live in the real world, and choose to remain totally ignorant.
It amazes me how people, and I am not singling you out here nor suggesting you are one of them, will say that George Bush went to war for oil but refuse to believe that Goldman Sachs runs Treasury or that the most powerful influential people would force scientific results to suit their needs. If you think those scientists were operating purely in the interest of science then you are out of your mind. No one can be this naive…..unless they are a computer.
MattF:”What you don’t seem to understand is that theirs isn’t the only data out there in support of anthropogenic global warming — not by a long shot. The discreditation of a particular group, even if it’s a fairly prominent group, does not automatically make all data gathered by all groups inconclusive, questionable, invented, or false.”
And it shouldn’t raise any red flags either. And we should all go along with whatever our benevolent government decides even though our government is destroying the currency, pushing prices higher, and destroying jobs. What’s another 5 to 10 million productive jobs lost. We can all go work for the government, producing nothing while getting paid in gazillions of printed up dollars that will surely be worth something. Go for it MattF.
MIke,
You said you believe that there have been and are political movements that bastardize Darwin to justify their own murderous tendencies. Would you like to name these movements for us? What political movement has or had anything about Charles Darwin or the Theory of Evolution in its major tenets or even mentioned them in writings, lectures or speeches? I thought you didn’t read Christian revisionist history. You couldn’t possibly have gotten that idea anywhere but from fundamentalist Christian historical revisionists. They’re the ones who made it up.
When did I ever say anything about devout Christians not being scientists? Do you believe I think only atheist science professors teach at BYU, Baylor, Notre Dame and the rest of the Christian colleges and universities? And FYI scientists do disagree on some of the nuances of evolutionary theory but not on its validity.
To attempt to bring some semblance of the topic back into this conversation: Ray Comfort gets interviewed by “The Friendly Atheist”, Hemant Mehta, here. His “arguments” boil down to two main points. First, atheism is evil, and therefore, science is wrong. Second, LALALALALALALALA I’M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALALA!
Regrettably, Mr. Comfort shows a complete inability to answer questions. Look at each of these questions, consider what possible answers to the question asked might look like, and then compare them to his responses. I’m paraphrasing, of course, but if anyone feels I’ve gotten the idea wrong, please feel free to set me straight.
Q: Can you explain evolution in your own words?
A: Evolution claims that life evolved. Evolution hasn’t been proven.
Q: Do you think scientists are (a) liars or (b) stupid? Pick one or the other.
A: I don’t have faith in the same things that scientists do.
Q: Can you explain why less religious countries are generally happier, safer, and have less crime than more religious ones?
A: Communism was evil.
Q: What are the last four books on evolution that you’ve read?
A: Evolution For Dummies and another book not about evolution.
Q: You say it is impossible for a Christian to convert to atheism. What about the people who claim that they have done so? Were they not real Christians, or are they not real atheists?
A: They were upset by the problems with modern Christianity.
The same style of argument occasionally veered toward the dishonest or just plain despicable.
Q: The arguments you make in the introduction to the Darwin book have been stated before — and refuted repeatedly by scientists. So why repeat them? Are you interested in hearing atheists’ responses to your questions?
A: I don’t deny that the arguments I have used have been addressed many times. However, it’s only atheists that believe that they have been “refuted.”
Only atheists? How on Earth can you rationalize a statement like that, when there are far more Christians (not even including other theists) who accept evolution than the total number of atheists? The only thing I can think of is that Mr. Comfort lumps all people who accept evolution into the camp of atheism (including famous “atheists” like Pope John Paul II), without being too careful about his categories or his claims to understand the thoughts and motivations of people he happens to disagree with.
Q: The banana. Do you stand by the argument in your video? Do you regret saying what you did? [...]
A: I deeply regret doing the banana routine on television without a live audience. I have been doing it for live audiences for more than 20 years, and it’s never failed to get a lot of laughs.
Fighting back the jokes that almost write themselves at this point, I find it interesting that Comfort does not regret using an argument that was not based on fact and turned out to be false. He regrets not doing it in front of a live audience. What more evidence does anyone need that dissemination of truth is not this man’s primary concern?
What on Earth does a statement like this say about Christian regard for the truth?
I also feel the need to address Mike’s accusations. Let me recap our discussion thus far:
News was reported that the data of a prominent research group should be called into question because its methodology was flawed. Mike mentioned that he knew some things that showed that the idea of global warming in general ought to be called into question, rightly pointing out that conclusions of scientific inquiry should not be based on politics.
I pressed to determine the depth and nature of this knowledge. Mike responded by pointing out that politics that claim to be using the prediction of global warming as a basis threaten to upset the lives of many.
I was under the impression that Mike’s claim to scientific knowledge concerning global warming just might have had some truth to it; and though I had not explicitly said so, I had neither the desire nor the inclination to turn a scientific debate into a political one. I tried to come back to the topic at hand, and Mike responded by questioning my compassion and claiming (without basis) that the only reason I want to keep things on a scientific footing (or even the only means whereby I could) is because I don’t understand hard labor and because I don’t understand financial difficulty so severe that it can frequently lead to the breakdown of family relationships.
With respect, I am attempting to keep this on a scientific footing precisely because of compassion. If we fail to act in accordance with the facts, it is easy to show that at the extremes, suffering will be widespread and profound. If global warming is not a threat, as Mike has pointed out, the politics that needlessly place heavier tax burdens on people will cause significant financial struggles for many. If global warming is a threat, and we continue to act as if it is not, even more people — including those who would not have been affected by the politics of developed nations — will suffer more deeply still.
As I mentioned, these are extremes in a broad spectrum of possibilities. But it seems clear that if we wish to mitigate suffering, cooler heads must prevail. We must be careful to determine exactly what the facts are, and cautious in trying to uncover what they signify. It does no good to change the subject into one of political activism, or to refuse to answer direct questions, or to stoop to personally attacking one’s opponents.
It’s clear that you feel passionately about this, Mike. But you should not presume to know or even suggest that my method of attempting to penetrate this problem comes from a lack of feeling or an inability to be compassionate. Accusations like this that you have leveled at anyone who disagrees with you really offer nothing to those who want to understand so that they can vote intelligently and educate others accurately, and they certainly don’t work towards building the political will necessary to eliminate problems; if anything, they threaten to reduce useful conversation to bickering that solves nothing and helps no one.
Even if I were to spontaneously agree with Mike’s politics on the matter, we would be guilty of addressing only the symptoms and not the root of the problem. We might find ourselves attempting to support politics contrary to reality, and reaping the necessary consequences; or if it is these politicians who do not properly grasp reality, we would have done nothing to undermine the basis from which this particular political movement sprang, and from which many other similar ones could originate. A victory against this particular political action might win a single argument or defeat a single piece of legislation, but in the long run would do nothing to change the direction of our society into what it should be with respect to the larger phenomenon (or lack of it).
It is also the case that an accurate assessment of the data will show us when proposed legislation is an overreaction (even if one might agree with its general direction), so that we can rein in political reactions that are too severe.
So, Mike, in the name of compassion and truth, I ask again: How do you know the Earth is actually cooling? How do you know that the ice caps are currently melting because of a redirection of the Gulf Stream? How do you know that the storm severity we witness is caused by cycles of such things and not climate change? How do you know that attempts to calibrate weather station readings were wrong?
Matt F.
post 92,
I just saw the “Banana video” that you brought up.
WHOOPS! Do you think he had any idea what wild bananas in their natural state were actually like before he made his points on that video, and was hoping that nobody else actually did, or do you think that he actually didn’t know that he was holding in his hands the result of thousands of years of selective cultivation?
Wait, I just left and read the interview between Mr. Comfort and Mr. Mehta.
This is interesting[among other things “Regarding genetic modification. There isn’t any evidence that the banana has changed it’s shape in the last 2,000 years.”-Mr. Comfort
Oh no? And that still doesn’t lay to rest the fact that the bananas and plantains we buy in the produce isle and eat today are nothing like the original wild seeds from 8,000 years ago.
This from the same man who is using the word “kind/kinds” when trying to debunk fossil evidence about transitional life forms.
Well, one good thing, people like Mr. Comfort sure help inspire others to think for themselves.
John: Do you think he had any idea what wild bananas in their natural state were actually like before he made his points on that video, and was hoping that nobody else actually did, or do you think that he actually didn’t know that he was holding in his hands the result of thousands of years of selective cultivation?
To answer that, let me quote him again: I deeply regret doing the banana routine on television without a live audience. I have been doing it for live audiences for more than 20 years, and it’s never failed to get a lot of laughs.
Note the present perfect continuous tense: “I have been doing it…”. That means he’s still doing it. He actually mentioned that his argument was flawed a few years ago. Anyone with a shred of honesty would, after finding this out, have stopped using the argument.
In point of fact, he keeps changing his story about the banana affair. First he claimed to be surprised, saying that he didn’t know that modern bananas are infertile cultivars and, as such, wouldn’t exist at all without human supervision. Then he argued that people were taking his claims out of context (where he compared the banana to a soda can, complete with pull-tab, descriptive signage in the form of changing color while ripening, and so on). More lately, he’s been claiming that the argument was never meant to be taken seriously in the first place.
Obviously, it’s impossible to determine the truth of the situation under these circumstances, but this behavior is like someone who’s trying to cover his tracks. If he’d admitted at the outset that he was mistaken, he wouldn’t look so bad. I mean, he’d still look a little foolish because it would be obvious that he didn’t do his homework, but as I’ve pointed out in a different context, even science documentaries have been known to take “artistic license” with the facts before. Instead, he keeps digging holes for himself.
John: Wait, I just left and read the interview between Mr. Comfort and Mr. Mehta.
This is interesting[among other things “Regarding genetic modification. There isn’t any evidence that the banana has changed it’s shape in the last 2,000 years.”-Mr. Comfort
Oh no? And that still doesn’t lay to rest the fact that the bananas and plantains we buy in the produce isle and eat today are nothing like the original wild seeds from 8,000 years ago.
Yeah. If you look up the document he refers to, you’ll find that it doesn’t say much other than that he now seems to think that ancient bananas were very much like modern bananas except in color. He’s trying to rewrite the history of the banana so that he can try to save face on this point. Of all the things to focus on! It’d be easier to admit he was wrong on this one tiny, insignificant thing than to go through all these contortions. Seems a little nutty to me, honestly.
John: This from the same man who is using the word “kind/kinds” when trying to debunk fossil evidence about transitional life forms.
To be fair, he’s far from the only creationist to do this; though for a group so concerned with claiming to be consistent with the facts, it’s danged hard to get any of them to agree on what a “kind” is, or to demonstrate that the rates of genetic or morphological change they need for their “kind” idea to work in the timescale they need it to work in is consistent to rates we currently measure in the lab or the wild (or give a testable explanation as to why they might be different).
I find it especially amusing to read the creationists who are convinced that the various members of the human family tree we’ve been digging up are clearly not what paleontologists think they are — they’re obviously apes, or obviously men with some kind of disease or other defect. If you compare the different creationists side by side, though, you’ll find that they don’t even agree on which fossils are which. For something so “obvious”, it’s curious that different creationists adamantly come down all over the map on what they’re looking at.
John: Well, one good thing, people like Mr. Comfort sure help inspire others to think for themselves.
Some, perhaps. More realistically, though, I expect that he merely reassures people who aren’t willing to look at the facts for themselves that it’s really okay and that they can go on believing their mistaken beliefs.
I guess that he couldn’t find another type of fruit that fit into the cracks of a persons hand as well[smile].
No seriously, if it’s true that he claimed that the argument was never to be taken seriously in the first place, then why keep doing it for over twenty years? Comedic effect?
I looked up the document that he referred to, and unless I am mistaken[wouldn't be the first time...]it looks as if he’s hedging almost all of his evidence on the physical history of bananas and plantains on the Arabic origin of the WORD banana, instead of, you know, “regarding genetic modification”.
As for humanity in all it’s far flung genetic and prehistoric diversity, why don’t Young Earthers just do what Young Earth Creationist seem to do with all other animals with such a variation within their family tree, and claim that they are all the product of micro-evolution, the human “kind”? Is it because of pride?
Because none of them want to accept the idea that their prehistoric ancestors were so…”bestial” in physiology and living habits, as if it’s just too embarrassing or degrading to have such humble and aesthetically unattractive origins? Why must there always be this appearance of elitism with other lifeforms within the natural world, this US verses THEM, “all man vs. all ape”, as if the alternative degrades the very countenance of God himself.
John: As for humanity in all it’s far flung genetic and prehistoric diversity, why don’t Young Earthers just do what Young Earth Creationist seem to do with all other animals with such a variation within their family tree, and claim that they are all the product of micro-evolution, the human “kind”? Is it because of pride?
Well, of course, the Bible tells us that we’re made in God’s image. The narrative of man being created from the dust of the ground seems at first glance to indicate that man’s body was created, in some sense, from scratch. I suppose the two together are enough to satisfy some people’s curiosity on the matter, and that they’d rather not see if they can find out more about what these sketchy clues mean by examining clues left behind. More’s the pity, too, because it seems that science has shown the whole thing to be more complex and subtle than we’d ever have guessed.
From history, I’d guess it may well be based on pride for some — the same sort of thing that made the Church cling tightly to the idea that the Earth just had to be the center of the Universe, the immobile center of God’s attention. Science has methodically removed man from every perch he’s fashioned for himself over the past 400 years or so, and that loss is keenly felt by some who still long to see the Church restored to its former state of supreme political and social influence.
John: No seriously, if it’s true that he claimed that the argument was never to be taken seriously in the first place, then why keep doing it for over twenty years? Comedic effect?
Absolutely. It’s much more hilarious this way. (“They’re laughing with me, Kirk! They’re laughing with me!”)
I meant to add that it’s a terrible shame that people who have no curiosity of their own, who somehow claim to love God more than anything and yet completely lack the desire to look even briefly at the handiwork and methods He used, have been trying to call the shots and have been insisting that people who do want to try to get to know the Creator of the Universe better have weak and misguided faith.
MattF I had fun with some protesters at an ID conference in Knoxville a few years ago. I talked to them after we were done and they were outside telling us how wrong we were. I asked them about 5 questions – and they told me they were stupid questions to ask. When I told them they were questions directly from Charles Darwin in his book, it was most amusing for me. I asked them if they had read the book – obviously the answer was no. Just like they had brought a knife to a gun fight. How did the hurricane season go for you global warming proponents this year?
Bob Griffin: I asked them about 5 questions – and they told me they were stupid questions to ask.
In my mind, that’s the wrong tactic whether you were asking questions out of Darwin’s book or whether you were attempting to satisfy your own curiosity.
Bob Griffin: How did the hurricane season go for you global warming proponents this year?
The hurricane season in 2009 was pretty weak — the weakest since 1997. The link between global warming and increased tropical storm/hurricane frequency is still being debated — I haven’t seen numbers that clearly delineate the contribution of El Nino to hurricane frequency and intensity versus global warming, for example — but we must remember that 2009 represents a single data point and that conclusions from it must be cautiously made; it’s much more relevant to look at, say, decades of activity as opposed to individual seasons to smooth out random fluctuation and noise. (Remember that 2006, too, was pretty quiet — relative to the extreme noise of 2004 and 2005, anyway — and that 2007 and 2008 were much above normal.)
Bob Griffin: When I told them they were questions directly from Charles Darwin in his book, it was most amusing for me. I asked them if they had read the book – obviously the answer was no.
By the by, one doesn’t have to know Charles Darwin intimately to know that ID isn’t doing science. It’s no secret that Darwin wasn’t (nor could he have been) right about everything, and biology has moved well beyond him into something called “The Modern Synthesis”. Don’t make the mistake that acceptance of evolution means agreeing with Darwin in every detail, or even that it means knowing Darwin at all well. (There’s no holy writ in science. What matters is what’s consistent with the data.)
Bob Griffin: When I told them they were questions directly from Charles Darwin in his book, it was most amusing for me.
Let me be plain. If you honestly thought you were making some kind of point against these protests by demonstrating that the protestors’ knowledge of what Darwin wrote was incomplete, you missed the battle completely. Those who care enough to do so generally protest ID on scientific grounds, not on literary ones. Whether or not people are being educated on exactly what Darwin wrote is very much a secondary issue to them; they’re generally more concerned about the threat of something being taught as science that isn’t.
If your point was to determine their literary acumen, it’s fairly easy to point out that you’ve missed occasional things about what Darwin wrote as well on this very site — e.g., his answers to the question of why we don’t see a smooth, unbroken continuum of organisms, and why the eyeball doesn’t fit the definition of irreducible complexity (even though it was made long after his seminal work) — so it might be better for you to exercise caution in these accusations.
Bob, share with us here the “about five” questions that you asked.
There are a few sites on the Internet that have meticulously refuted all of Ray Comfort’s arguments and one in particular that has mocked all of his claims and quite hilariously I might add. What’s funnier Comfort’s human engineered banana or the coconut — the theist’s nightmare? Although the meat and water is pleasing to our taste buds, note that the coconut:
1. Is not shaped for human hand
2. When it has ripened, it doesn’t detach for a few months, at which point the coconut water has become bitter. If you want coconut water, you have to get it while it’s still unripened.
3. When it detaches, it falls from tall palms, injuring people.
4. Has no tab for removal of wrapper
5. Has no perforation on wrapper.
6. You have to whack it many times about its circumference with a tool.
7. It is not shaped for human mouth
8. Has no point at top for ease of entry
9. Removing the meat from the shell is a laborious process, even with a tool.
10. Is not curved towards the face to make eating process easy
- The Theist Test.
Comfort tries to equate atheism to acceptance of evolution. How does he explain the existence of atheists and atheism for thousands of years before Darwinian evolution by natural selection came along? Comfort’s claim that atheism is founded on the claim that nothing created something is simply wrong. Atheism is founded on the fact that religious explanations just aren’t good enough. The atheist doesn’t have to know or even guess what caused the universe or life to emerge to know false explanations when they hear or see them.
Interesting that a creationist would use the analogy of bringing a knife to a gunfight. What does he think creationists were doing when they attempted to take on the entire scientific community with their absurd and quite useless creationist pseudo-science and religious doctrine in court? That was like trying to stop a tank with a pea shooter because the entire creationist movement was crushed and stopped forever right there and splayed open for the general public to see just who and what kind of people were behind it. Now creationists attempt to blame intellectualism and atheistic professors for the fact that 3 out of 4 Christian college students reject their faith before they graduate. The creationist movement and its anti-intellectualism are directly responsible for driving young people away from Christianity.
Gurgus: What’s funnier Comfort’s human engineered banana or the coconut — the theist’s nightmare?
I remember seeing one that had a fictional conversation between a theist and an agnostic:
Theist: “Behold the simple banana. This fruit surely exists to show man that God is a benevolent Provider and Creator.” He goes on to list some attributes that should be familiar, including how easy it is to hold and consume. “Whenever anyone sees how wonderful they are, they should have no choice but to think of these divine attributes.”
Agnostic: “So what’s the deal with the pineapple, then?”
See, this is the hallmark of creationist “arguments” — a complete inability to notice that nature is complex and immensely varied. They’ll cherry-pick one species, note how marvelous its attributes are, and then declare that it could not have evolved suddenly, conveniently ignoring the evidence of intermediate steps all around them. (For example, they’ll point at a whale species that can hold its breath for two hours, then ask how on Earth this ability sprang up suddenly in this species — conveniently ignoring all the sea mammals around them that don’t hold their breath nearly as long, or that this ability didn’t have to show up all at once at its current form.)
They claim to have wonder when it comes to the natural Universe, but it’s a strange, moribund kind of wonder. A healthy sense of wonder, it seems to me, sees something amazing and says something like, “Wow! I wonder how it does that! I wonder if there are any other things like that! I wonder if there are things that look similar, but not identical, and what those similarities and differences can tell us about other things that wouldn’t at first glance appear to be connected at all!” … and so on. A creationist sense of wonder seems to be content with saying”Wow!” and stopping dead — and insisting that everyone else’s sense of wonder should be just as anemic, stamping its little feet and declaring that anyone whose curiosity leaves the starting line and seeks not just to look at, but also to understand, is dangerous, compromised, and probably bound for eternal punishment.
MattF The hurricane season for the last several years was predicted to be terrible by the global warming crowd. They were wrong. What would your reaction be if Ken Ham was acting like the global hoaxer? Give him a break? I know, were past Darwin now.
John Dont remember the exact questions, but read Darwins book – the 2 chapters on doubt – and you will see all the possible questions I may have used. Even though I was on the wrong track with my Darwin believing antagonists. Cost of the convention $75. The looks on their faces – priceless.
Gurgus I have read a few books on the court cases. One judge does not a consensus make. Evidence thrown out, not admitted etc etc. At least Darwin had the guts to put his doubts in print – most unlike todays movement.
Bob Griffin: The hurricane season for the last several years was predicted to be terrible by the global warming crowd. They were wrong.
Your records are off. The National Hurricane Center described 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 as well above normal. 2006 seemed quiet, but actually represented a normal level of activity. It seems the denialists are guilty of cherry-picking (one of their favorite tactics).
Besides, as I’ve stated, one should look at much longer time spans in order to avoid thinking one is seeing trends in too brief a period; it is also the case that this is still being debated (cf. post 99). You seem to think that science is all or nothing on all fronts.
Whether or not this prediction turns out to be accurate, though, showing the truth or falsehood of one of the posited consequences of global warming is irrelevant to the data that shows us that global warming is occurring.
Bob Griffin: What would your reaction be if Ken Ham was acting like the global hoaxer?
That’s a very poorly worded question (“When are you going to stop beating your wife?”). I would be willing to give Ken Ham more latitude if he were not so keen on stating things are absolutely true that are provably false, or if he would refrain from telling people that certain things are true about evolution that aren’t, or if he would refrain from telling people that certain things are true about “evolutionists” that aren’t. Telling blatant falsehoods is very different from proposing an idea under debate (even if that idea later turns out to be false).
Bob Griffin: One judge does not a consensus make.
Judges don’t make scientific consensus, full stop.
Bob Griffin: At least Darwin had the guts to put his doubts in print – most unlike todays movement.
Pick up a peer-reviewed science journal and read it, would you? They’re chock-full of quotes that creationists love to use out of context to assert that doubts in evolution run deep in the scientific community. They’re exactly the sort of sentiments that Darwin had in his book — going over the potential problems with their conclusions, places where facts that might corroborate or deny the idea are less than complete, and so on and so on. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. (Darwin points out that there are challenges to his theory, but he also points out that none are fatal.)
Bob post106,
Well that’s too darned bad that you forgot….all of them.
Bob, the source I am using is a book I bought at Barnes and Noble titled “The Darwin Compendium- Voyage of the Beagle, Origin of Species, Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Expression of Emotions in Humans and Animals, and Autobiography”.
An awful BIG book at 1,874 pages to go through looking for some random questions.
If you are only referring to the section titled “Origin of Species” then could you at least give me a chapter title to help me start hunting in? Are the two chapters on “doubt” that you’re talking about the ones titled “Doubtful Species” within section 2 titled “Variation Under Nature”, and the entire section 6 titled “Difficulties On Theory”?
Bob,
What do you mean “one judge?” The creationists have lost every court case they have been involved in and they’ve lost most of their political fights as well. At least two Supreme Court justices, Fortas and Brennan, have also written opinions that said creationism was religious doctrine and had no place in the public schools. Proof that creation “science” and Intelligent Design are religious hoaxes and have nothing to do with science is in the fact that not only have they been banned by the courts and soundly refuted by scientists they have also been rejected by all the private Christian colleges and universities in the world as well. Why don’t you creationists take your own colleges to court and demand they teach your version of science Bob? Or simply demand they “teach the controversy.” Could it be that there is no controversy to teach? Or any science either?
Science isn’t done by “movements.” Science is done by hard working dedicated skeptical people most of whom labor in obscurity. They use the theories their area of science is based on. Atomic scientists use Atomic Theory, meteorologists the Theory of Precipitation, geologists the Principle of Superposition, biologists the Theory of Evolution and so on. Many of them write scientific literature but very few ever write anything for public consumption. Creation “scientists” and Intelligent Design promoters however, don’t use any of their “theories” to produce anything. Instead unlike real scientists all they do is write books and not scientific literature either but books geared toward a scientifically illiterate public. THAT is what a movement is Bob. Creationism is a religious movement.
Darwin had the guts to put his doubts in print but modern scientists don’t? Oh and creation “scientists” and Intelligent Design promoters do? When have we heard any serious doubt or dissension coming from anyone in the creationist movement? You don’t find that statement just a bit hypocritical? There aren’t any scientists that are qualified to discuss the subject who doubt the validity of evolutionary theory. Scientists express their doubts all the time and wind up proving each other wrong very often too. When they do we call that progress.
Matt,
Global warming may very well be a scam. It’s too early to tell. Most scientists agree the earth is warming. They don’t know whether this is a natural warming trend or whether humans are causing it. I’m inclined to think it’s us. Nature, because of our rape of the planet over the last 200 years, for all intents and purposes doesn’t exist anymore.
The reason the creationists are so vehemently against global warming should be obvious. First they claim the views of global warming skeptics are being suppressed. If these “suppressed” views should be found to be legitimate or at least be believed to be legitimate by the general public creationists will insist that all scientific dissent is of similar worth, even their wacky creationist pseudo-science. Creationists have already called for criminal prosecution for scientists who fake data and a massive de-funding of science. By equating science with organized crime, scientists with criminals and de-funding scientific research the creationists are attempting to bring back witch-hunts, theocracy and their goal of restoring the Dark Ages.
The creationists don’t know if the earth is cooling, warming or staying the same temperature and they don’t care. Jesus is coming soon. As with every other issue they involve themselves in this is about ideology. Discussing the facts of the global warming issue with creationists is just as pointless as discussing the facts of evolution with them. Instead we should just point out to individual creationists like Bob here exactly how his religious leaders are misleading him and what their real agenda is. Not that he’ll care. These people just need to be told that the rest of us know what they are up to and most of the time before they do themselves.
So like I said global warming may be a scam. It is true that there are people positioning themselves to make money from global warming legislation. But anti-global warming for the purposes of furthering a Bible based bashing of science and scientists is DEFINITELY a scam. I personally don’t have enough information to make an educated guess as to which side of the issue is the correct one. If I had to make a decision, I’d lean toward the side that says the earth is warming and human activity is the most significant contributing factor. It would only be a guess though based on the fact that fundamentalist Bible believers have yet to be on the right side of a scientific issue since the Bible was written.
Gurgus: Global warming may very well be a scam. It’s too early to tell.
Sure. But what I see used as tactics to fight it amount to bad reasoning (one group or finding indicating that the whole bunch is bad) or bad science (mistaking consequents for necessary premises). It’s that kind of bad thinking I mean to argue against.
As I pointed out earlier, this most recent story involving the IPCC might reveal unethical behavior confined to the IPCC, or it might be the beginning of the dismantling of anthropogenic global warming in general. The truth will come out as people continue to investigate reality and compare people’s ideas of what’s going on to the data. And regardless of how it turns out, I don’t feel upset or threatened or anything like that. I’m interested in finding out what’s real; and even though science gives us a way to eliminate errors gross and subtle, patience is required. I’m more curious about what’s really going on than I am wedded to a particular model or theory.
Gurgus: Most scientists agree the earth is warming. They don’t know whether this is a natural warming trend or whether humans are causing it.
Right. Which is why I’ve asked people to produce data so that we can have meaningful discussions about it. Without that, there’s no way to gauge the relevance of what someone is claiming, and it turns into a game of he-said-she-shouted.
Gurgus: I’m inclined to think it’s us. Nature, because of our rape of the planet over the last 200 years, for all intents and purposes doesn’t exist anymore.
There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that the planet is warming up. (This, too, could be overturned by subsequent findings — but so far, the evidence seems pretty solid.) I don’t know how much of it is because of human influence, and careful studies must continue to be done to try to understand this as well as we are able. It occurs to me, though, that regardless of how much you can blame on humanity for the state of affairs, the things that mankind is doing aren’t helping.
Gurgus: The reason the creationists are so vehemently against global warming should be obvious. First they claim the views of global warming skeptics are being suppressed. If these “suppressed” views should be found to be legitimate or at least be believed to be legitimate by the general public creationists will insist that all scientific dissent is of similar worth, even their wacky creationist pseudo-science.
Well, there has to be some reason creationism isn’t more widely acknowledged in the scientific community, documentaries, universities, and the like, doesn’t there?
A conspiracy theory seems to be the natural next step. Conspiracy theories “explain” why the simple things Moon hoaxers find in Apollo footage to cast doubt on the landings aren’t seen by everyone — especially those who ought to know better. They “explain” why UFOs aren’t simply known to be fact. They “explain” why The Secret remains a secret.
But they accomplish nothing in terms of finding out what the facts really are. I’d like to get some hard data simply because it would put some real weight behind what the deniers say, and we could finally have a real conversation, one that goes beyond instinctive mistrust and endless rounds of “Yeah, but”. We might actually be able to get some work done, and figure some stuff out for real.
Until then, I have to demand the same sort of rigor, the same demonstration of actual data, and the same kind of evidence that the data was gathered responsibly and is reasonably represented that I needed to accept the idea that the Earth is warming. It’s why I can’t claim to know how much is being done by humans, and why I can’t give denialists a by simply because they’re claiming something different.
Gurgus: The creationists don’t know if the earth is cooling, warming or staying the same temperature and they don’t care. Jesus is coming soon.
I run across this philosophy from time to time, and I find it chilling. I no longer believe in a pre-Tribulational Rapture, but even if I’m wrong, won’t the world be miserable enough without the people left behind also having to deal with the consequences of these devil-may-care attitudes about the environment?
What does such an attitude say about the importance of compassion to Christians?
Gurgus: Discussing the facts of the global warming issue with creationists is just as pointless as discussing the facts of evolution with them. Instead we should just point out to individual creationists like Bob here exactly how his religious leaders are misleading him and what their real agenda is.
Your tactic may work better than mine, for all I know. I just share stuff in a manner consistent with what worked in my case. I found my way out because of access to the facts and direct observation; finding out the attitude prominent creationist teachers have with respect to the truth was an upsetting and disturbing consequent, since I then had to find out whether they were accidentally mistaken or deliberately misleading. (Many who spout creationism are simply mistaken. But many of the big names also seem to see nothing wrong with distorting the truth in order to lend credence to their points.)
I’m also slightly concerned that determining whom to follow based on someone’s perceived motivation for saying something could lead to other errors. There’s a widespread notion, for example, that if someone appears to be in a position to prosper by saying something, then what they say should not be trusted. (It’s reason to be skeptical, certainly, but not to discard what they say out of hand.) Likewise, if there is no clear way in which someone could advance their station by saying what they’re saying, there is a prevalent notion that what they have to say must be true. (This is also not the case. People can be sincere, but wrong. It’s also the case that for some, brief notoriety is its own reward, and worth sacrificing for in order to obtain.) The perceived motivation of a speaker may not be related at all to the truth or falsehood of what they have to say, and pretending that it does, even to make a point, is an error in logic that could later backfire.
Gurgus: I personally don’t have enough information to make an educated guess as to which side of the issue is the correct one.
I have a rather large pile of data that seems to show a warming Earth. I know what it would take to force me to re-interpret the data; it’s quite possible, but it wouldn’t be as simple as someone saying, “Well, what about this?” without a context to put their point into.
That’s very different, though, from saying that I know that human activity is to blame, and how much. That’s the kind of thing that can only be properly understood by demonstrating the effects that someone is talking about. (One of the more intriguing attempts to do that looks at the isotopes of carbon in atmospheric carbon dioxide — what does it reveal about the amount present through burning fossil fuels versus the amount present through more mundane, ongoing chemical reactions? Not easy to answer or conclusive by itself, but intriguing.)
Please don’t take my demands for rigor as an indication that I know exactly where to stand on the issue. I just refuse to take someone else’s stance without proper evidence.
MattF Ive got your peer review right here. We see from Climategate how peer review works for the side in favor. Your climate boys are just like evolutionists.
John I assume you remember every exact detail of every day 2 years ago. The book was The Origin of Species. The 2 chapters are 6 and 9. Look them up.
Gurgus 110 As to the court cases, Climategate is giving us more of the same. One side that is pc rigs the game. I agree that religious schools should teach creation – teach evolution too. Tell the pros and cons and let each decide. Have to finish up tomorrow.
Bob Griffin: We see from Climategate how peer review works for the side in favor.
One must remember to keep “Climategate” in context when one is trying to determine its significance.
That context is simply this: There is voluminous evidence, tested and re-tested and re-re-tested by many different leading scientific bodies in many different political climates who each went out to gather the data completely on their own, showing that global warming is real and that at least some of it is human-caused.
So, in light of that, what would it take for “Climategate” to undermine our understanding in a serious way?
To answer, let’s assume that the worst, most damaging rhetoric from the denialists is absolutely true, and that every implication of ethical wrongdoing they read in the leaked emails and commented source code is accurate. (I expect that the truth lies somewhere less one-sided than this — that perhaps some wrongdoing has occurred, though not to the extent that many vocal denialists like to purport. Time will tell, though, and regardless of my opinion, the reality is what it is.) If that’s true, the denialists still will not have established two key things.
First, they will not have shown that these scientists are somehow representative of every scientist in every major climatological research organization that has attempted to gather its own data and draw its own conclusions.
Second, they will not have addressed the foundations of our understanding about global warming, merely a smattering of studies. As such, they will not have done anything to require a fundamental re-assessment of the foundations of our understanding of the global warming phenomenon.
Even if we end up having to completely disregard the studies implicated in “Climategate”, in other words, we will have done nothing that alters our understanding of what’s going on. Systematic attacks on high-profile minutiae that frequently get splashed across the mass media — a prominent group, a particular graph, or what have you — may score points with people who’ve only been exposed to small amounts or particular kinds of data, but it doesn’t do anything to address the science as a whole. Insisting that it does puts one in the same league as those who want to try to prove that General Relativity is completely wrong by attacking the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sure, any introduction to the subject will tend to reference that study, since it encapsulates in a pithy way many of the problems General Relativity attempts to address. But even if that experiment should be completely discredited, it does nothing to even approach the mountains of experiments done in the meantime by completely unaffiliated groups that show results remarkably consistent with General Relativity.
My sense is, Bob, that your seeming belief in the ability of this one scandal — even before investigations have been made and findings of the depth of wrongdoing reported — to completely upset the idea of anthropogenic global warming only indicates how little data you have been exposed to. Individual studies don’t even amount to the smallest grain of sand in the broad, lengthy beach of scientific evidence. What science is more interested in than the results of any given study is the degree to which entirely different findings, working from entirely different starting points and data, agree. It is because of this consistency, not the findings of individual studies, that we understand global warming. It is because this consistency exists in spite of the vast diversity and number of scientists (and scientific organizations) that we find a conclusion compelling, and it is that consistency that we refer to as a “consensus”. (It does not refer to a collusion, or even to a “meeting of the minds” to find out what different scientists think and to see if some kind of “mission statement” can be reached.)
So even if we take a worst-case scenario for the scientists involved in “Climategate”, it seems that you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about when you speak of peer review. (Besides which, no one has even suggested that peer review is instantaneous in its removal of error in any case.) Show me that you understand what it would take to reverse our understanding, and why you think “Climategate” will do that.
Matt,
As I said I don’t know enough about the science of global warming to discuss it in depth. I agree with everything you said though for what that’s worth. What I do understand very well and much better than most people apparently are the ideologies behind both sides of the issue. This is important because as you know discussing facts with ideologues is pointless.
I didn’t get on this blog to have debates and arguments with Christian believers but rather to engage in discussions with Christian thinkers such as your self and some others here and any other unbelievers who may be hanging around. So the debating tactics I use with creationists are designed to shut them up in a hurry and make them go away with their tails between their legs. Since this isn’t your goal my tactics won’t work for you. It’s apparent to anyone reading these debates that we can’t communicate with creationists because we are speaking different languages. Their beliefs are un-falsifiable so no argument or evidence will convince them and they’ll do whatever mental gymnastics they have to in order to hang onto their beliefs. This is the nature of addiction.
I don’t want to engage creationists in debates but I don’t want to walk away from a debate either and give them the satisfaction of claiming that I really know there is a God and that all I want to do is sin and not go to hell when I die. Of course what they are really doing is projecting what THEY really want onto unbelievers and have been convinced they can’t have so why should we be allowed to? What really bothers them is that they know very well it is likely that we unbelievers will not be punished in hell for our sins and that all their self-denial of the pleasures of the flesh is for nothing. That’s why we always hear the plea that if they’re wrong about God they’ve lost nothing. Atheism reminds them that it is quite possible that they’ve surrendered to nothing and lost everything. That there is a big cosmic joke and it’s on them. There is and it is. Sad and yet funny at the same time.
I know much more about theology than I do science. It is extremely wrongheaded to expect the imminent return of Jesus as countless generations of Christians have already shown. All major religions have some kind of eschatology in which a savior is going to return to earth and restore the planet to its original hunky-dory ness. These stories though, are not to be understood or interpreted literally. They are mythical and arbitrary, the savior comes but he doesn’t come. These apocalypses speak of always standing prepared to meet God and of death’s arbitrariness that separates the one who is taken from the one who is left behind. They have nothing to do with the physical end of the world. Rather they speak of a day of blessing over judgment. These stories were meant to encourage people, not to get them to duck and cover and especially not to give people an excuse to rape the planet and foul the atmosphere with their gas guzzling SUVs.
.
Bob,
Anyone who constantly uses words like evolutionist, evolutionism, Darwinism or Darwinist is a scientific ignoramus. This is what we should expect from someone who gets their science information from an ancient collection of writings that claim the earth is flat, never moves, had vegetation on it before the sun and moon even existed and most importantly gets the order of creation exactly backwards. You wouldn’t want to try to explain all those scientific blunders in your holy science book would you Bob? I didn’t think so. Cognitive dissonance. Look it up.
If you think religious schools should teach creation and they aren’t they must have some very good reason for that don’t you think? What would a class on creation teach exactly? Good morning class. Now if you will all open your science books to Genesis chapter… This claim of yours reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, what science does or why it even exists in the first place. Science has to advance knowledge and produce viable tangible results that improve our way of life somehow. That’s why we study nature in the first place. Creationists cannot produce any tangible results with their insane pseudo-science and can’t even tell us how creation “science” or Intelligent Design could advance knowledge, lead to future discoveries or what it could ever be used for. That’s because Intelligent Design isn’t science, it’s ancient mindless religious dogma that has proved to be absolutely worthless. Go ahead have another ID conference. When it’s over tell us about all the new discoveries and products you come up with. Number of people who do not believe Adam and Eve were real people and Noah had an ark present at this conference: 0. Call it what it is Bob: a gathering of Bible believing Christian religious fanatics.
Science is not a democracy Bob. Your idea that students should decide for themselves about a scientific theory is ridiculous. That’s like saying we should teach astrology along with astronomy, chemistry along with alchemy, modern geocentrism along with Big Bang cosmology and just let the stupid students decide what they want to believe. Or worse, what agrees with the ancient religious superstitions their uneducated parents packed their heads with before they sent them off to school.
You’re not going to do well in a debate with an atheist armed with nothing but ancient fables and arguments you’ve accepted from other people you don’t understand well enough yourself to defend. I suggest we end this conversation right here.
Bob post 114,
Bob, if IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII had thought of a humorous incident which both proved my point AND was important enough to bring up with people who seemed to enjoy lambasting me because they thought I had a lack of knowledge on a topic and always bugged me about details with my stories, and had even been on Stu’s radio show a few times trying to debunk said topic, AND it only involved no more than “about five questions”, then yes, I would remember those handful of questions.
Chapters six and nine?
O.k., that narrows it down to 40 pages of reading to find your “about five” questions.
If and when I find those particular questions that you might have asked[there will be no way to confirm anything that I might bring up as one of your possible questions...because you forgot all of them]I will then have to figure out how much any of this will matter in light of what we now understand scientifically. After all, scientific knowledge has come a very long way since Darwin’s time[smile].
MattF You are laughable today. The climate SCIENTISTS were caught lying and faking data. Keep defending them. And there are many scientists who disagree – you just dont accept them. Peer review? Recheck your posts on how you want to see any ID science peer reviewed. I would think an intellectual such as yourself would have read the articles on how your scientists rigged the peer review. Very malicious and vengeful and suppressing opposing ideas.
Bob Griffin: The climate SCIENTISTS were caught lying and faking data. Keep defending them.
I wasn’t defending them. I asked people to assume, for the sake of argument, that every last little bit of mudslinging accusation against them was true, just to point out what the relevance of all this noise really is.
Try reading for comprehension, Bob.
Bob Griffin: And there are many scientists who disagree – you just dont accept them.
Because of the data. Do you want to discuss? Show me which data I should consider relevant, and we can put it in the larger context of what we’ve observed and see how it flies. Who knows? You may bring evidence to the table that I can’t touch with the observations I know and vindicate yourself. I want to know what’s real, Bob, so I couldn’t care less about being wrong if you have data to back it up. If you have something real, quit stalling and produce it.
Bob Griffin: Recheck your posts on how you want to see any ID science peer reviewed.
I’d like to see any ID science, full stop. Peer review of that science would be icing on the cake.
Bob Griffin: I would think an intellectual such as yourself would have read the articles on how your scientists rigged the peer review.
I did, and I’m still waiting on investigations to determine the extent of wrongdoing. I’m not defending the wrongdoing at all, but again, I ask you to put this into the larger context.
Gurgus Semantics babe. Im fully aware you have moved past Darwin now. I just like bringing up his logical questions to the problems of his theory. You need to reread the bible – youre getting it wrong. Lets open the class like in any mainstream school. Good morning students, I want to tell you about the Big Bang, and how massive disorder created amazing order – can you give me any real life examples of that today?
“Real science” vs ID Its just like global warming. Pick which side you believe. With global warming science is a consensus. Thats comforting. Ill end the conversation on that.
John Einstein didnt know his own phone number. Ill make this easy for you. There are 2 chapters on doubt. Each chapter has questions by CD about doubts he has. I used some of those. But since weve come so far since Darwin, you might not want to waste your time questioning your bible. Does this mean your bible is errant?
Bob, “Massive disorder” and “amazing order” within the universe are but matters of human perspective.
My “bible”?
It’s easy to see how one with your attitude would towards the Natural Sciences would get comments like that from protesters outside a convention.
Of course there are errors within the books, but I wasn’t questioning that as so much as I was giving you yet another opportunity to support your line of argumentation[smile]. Later.
Bob Griffin: Good morning students, I want to tell you about the Big Bang, and how massive disorder created amazing order – can you give me any real life examples of that today?
Crystallization. Snowflakes. Plants regularly turn assorted minerals, gases, and sunshine into sophisticated plant tissues. Freezing and melting cycles sort stones into regular patterns. Drying mud produces cracks in orderly fashion. Zygotes turn into adults.
Creationists appeal to our understanding of how disorder can create order whenever they make a claim like “Fossils appear in strata through hydrological sorting”.
Can you define “disorder” and “order” so that we can better address your question?
Bob Griffin: “Real science” vs ID Its just like global warming. Pick which side you believe.
That’s rather easy when one side has experiments, observations, and discovery to buttress its stance and the other side depends on common fallacies in human thought and analysis to make its case.
“Picking a side” isn’t like picking mustard over mayonnaise in this case. It’s picking what happens to agree with observable fact. Unless and until you can produce some, you’re just making noise.
Bob Griffin: With global warming science is a consensus.
Did you conveniently forget to read for comprehension again, Bob? It’s not a consensus in the sense that everyone agrees ahead of time what the conclusion ought to be. It’s a consensus in the sense that many independent lines of inquiry point to a singular phenomenon. It’s always possible that we’re mistaken about what that phenomenon is; show that the data is consistent with your claims. Leave the “Climategate” data out of it, if you prefer.
Ive got your peer review right here. Enjoy the article.
Commenter Nails the Central Issue in ClimateGate: the Rigging of Peer-Review
The pro-global warming blog Climate Change Denial is spinning like a top. Devastated by the revelation of pervasive fraud in climate science, the warmists are clearly dazed and grasping at any tactics that might salvage their ideological hijacking of science, now laid bare. In their latest post, “Swiftboating the Climate Scientists”, they ignore the transparent scientific misconduct and fraud revealed in the highest eschalons of climate science, and accuse the skeptics of attacking climate science for base ideological motives. The term “swiftboating” alone is risible and actually revealing; warmists are nearly all leftists, still simmering over the implosion of the Kerry/Edwards candidacy. It’s ironic that these “objective” scientists and activists use a left-wing political slur to attack skeptics who demand honest science.
A commenter (Starchild, # 20) summed up the scope of scientific fraud revealed in ClimateGate quite nicely:
(1) Peer-review process is one of cornerstones of modern science. Actions described in e-mails are WAY out of normal review process I know. Actually they usually are explicitly prohibited by journal policies and ethics codes. Tampering with peer-review process, expecially to exclude opponents, are second most serious scientific crime after outright research fabrication. E-mails are clear enough and no amount of “context” could change interpretation. In any other research field I know, perpetuators would be expected to resign immediately on peer-review “games” alone.
(2) “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” stance by Phil Jones is quite damning one, especially IN CONTEXT of repeated information requests. Again in branches of science, natural assumption would be that paper or papers in question are fraudulent. This could be cleared, but only afer serious explanation by author and INDEPENDENT and COMPETENT verification of research in question.
This is major scandal concerning Ethics of Science. “Damage control” of yours could deal with public opinion, but I believe scientific community would not allow it just go away.
The most pervasive manifestation of this fraud is the perversion of the peer-review process; it renders all of the ‘consensus science’ that has accrued under that process essentially worthless. Peer review is to science as jury deliberations are to criminal justice. It is sacrosanct. If it is tampered with, the verdict — scientific or judicial — is worthless, and must be thrown out.
The peer-review process in evolutionary biology is at least as compromised as the peer-review process in climate science. There is no “consensus” when the deliberations are rigged. No scientific conclusion is valid unless the raw data on which it is based is available to all for inspection and replication, and no scientific conclusion is valid unless the peer-review process is free of coersion and of ideological bias. Is there ideological bias in evolutionary biology, as there obviously is in climate science? Perhaps we should ask the 98.7% of evolutionary biologists who don’t believe in a personal God that question.
It’s easy to get a ‘consensus’ when one side controls the jury. That’s a ’show trial’, which is a succinct description of the peer review process in evolutionary biology as applied to intelligent design.
John and MattF You dont get the massive disorder that would happen at the Big Bang? NIce examples Matt, but were talking about an explosion creating order. Your examples dont fit the bill.
MattF and John The Big Bang means a big explosion. NIce try Matt, but those examples arent caused by an explosion. Heres a great peer review article for you.
Commenter Nails the Central Issue in ClimateGate: the Rigging of Peer-Review
The pro-global warming blog Climate Change Denial is spinning like a top. Devastated by the revelation of pervasive fraud in climate science, the warmists are clearly dazed and grasping at any tactics that might salvage their ideological hijacking of science, now laid bare. In their latest post, “Swiftboating the Climate Scientists”, they ignore the transparent scientific misconduct and fraud revealed in the highest eschalons of climate science, and accuse the skeptics of attacking climate science for base ideological motives. The term “swiftboating” alone is risible and actually revealing; warmists are nearly all leftists, still simmering over the implosion of the Kerry/Edwards candidacy. It’s ironic that these “objective” scientists and activists use a left-wing political slur to attack skeptics who demand honest science.
A commenter (Starchild, # 20) summed up the scope of scientific fraud revealed in ClimateGate quite nicely:
(1) Peer-review process is one of cornerstones of modern science. Actions described in e-mails are WAY out of normal review process I know. Actually they usually are explicitly prohibited by journal policies and ethics codes. Tampering with peer-review process, expecially to exclude opponents, are second most serious scientific crime after outright research fabrication. E-mails are clear enough and no amount of “context” could change interpretation. In any other research field I know, perpetuators would be expected to resign immediately on peer-review “games” alone.
(2) “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” stance by Phil Jones is quite damning one, especially IN CONTEXT of repeated information requests. Again in branches of science, natural assumption would be that paper or papers in question are fraudulent. This could be cleared, but only afer serious explanation by author and INDEPENDENT and COMPETENT verification of research in question.
This is major scandal concerning Ethics of Science. “Damage control” of yours could deal with public opinion, but I believe scientific community would not allow it just go away.
The most pervasive manifestation of this fraud is the perversion of the peer-review process; it renders all of the ‘consensus science’ that has accrued under that process essentially worthless. Peer review is to science as jury deliberations are to criminal justice. It is sacrosanct. If it is tampered with, the verdict — scientific or judicial — is worthless, and must be thrown out.
The peer-review process in evolutionary biology is at least as compromised as the peer-review process in climate science. There is no “consensus” when the deliberations are rigged. No scientific conclusion is valid unless the raw data on which it is based is available to all for inspection and replication, and no scientific conclusion is valid unless the peer-review process is free of coersion and of ideological bias. Is there ideological bias in evolutionary biology, as there obviously is in climate science? Perhaps we should ask the 98.7% of evolutionary biologists who don’t believe in a personal God that question.
It’s easy to get a ‘consensus’ when one side controls the jury. That’s a ’show trial’, which is a succinct description of the peer review process in evolutionary biology as applied to intelligent design.
Another enjoyable article for you.
Darwinist: I.D. isn’t science. And if it’s not science, it isn’t true.
I.D. Proponent: Isn’t science the quest for truth about life and the universe?
Darwinist: Only if that quest is done within a materialist framework.
I.D. Proponent: But what if that quests needs to go OUTSIDE the materialist framework?
Darwinist: Then it’s not science. And thus, it’s not true.
?Let’s take this debate into the private sector…
Employee: Boss, I have a great idea. Instead of using typewriters, why don’t we start using computers? Computers are a lot faster and better.
Boss: Do computers use a mechanical process?
Employee: Well, yes – but what makes them better is their use of information technology.
Boss: We can’t use information technology.
Employee: Why not?
Boss: Because it’s outside the realm of mechanics. We decided a long time ago that work – by definition – can only be a mechanical process. Information theory (or any form of “mind”) must be ruled out.
Employee: Um, but computers are a lot better than typewriters! With computers, we can do twice as much work in half the time!
Boss: Sorry, get back to your typewriter.
In the private sector, that boss would never survive. How much longer can Darwinism survive?
How much longer? Well, that depends on the tactics they are allowed to use against anyone who questions them.
Firing? Denial of tenure? Taking down the Web site? All have happened. If they get more desperate, more such incidents will happen.
Bob Griffin (quoting someone else without attribution): It’s ironic that these “objective” scientists and activists use a left-wing political slur to attack skeptics who demand honest science.
That’s hilarious. I’ve been the one fighting to keep politics out of these discussions.
And again, I’m not claiming that these scientists are innocent of wrongdoing. How are you missing such a simple point?
Bob Griffin (qouting someone else without attribution): The most pervasive manifestation of this fraud is the perversion of the peer-review process; it renders all of the ‘consensus science’ that has accrued under that process essentially worthless.
All? It takes a lot to render all of it invalid, especially since there are literally thousands of papers collected over decades representing many different independent gatherings of data and independent conclusions. A lot more than just stating that it is the case, anyway, which is all this article writer has done.
Bob Griffin (qouting someone else without attribution): Peer review is to science as jury deliberations are to criminal justice. It is sacrosanct. If it is tampered with, the verdict — scientific or judicial — is worthless, and must be thrown out.
We’re talking about the tamperings of a single group. If the findings of that group don’t match reality, the findings of other groups will demonstrate that.
There are no “deliberations” in scientific consensus. We’re most interested in independent studies. Scientific consensus would be more analogous to sequestering every single juror in a group of hundreds, requiring each one to read up on logic and forensic science (on her own), allowing each one to evaluate the crime scene (on her own), then asking each one to deliver a verdict along with all of her findings (on her own). If all the jurors came to the same verdict, and the findings are found to be consistent, that means something significant about the accused. If one juror’s testimony was found to be inconsistent with details about the crime scene, we could disregard that juror with confidence of all the others agree (and have findings consistent with the facts) and still be reasonably confident that the verdict is a good one.
The article writer here is, by way of analogy, declaring all automobiles completely defective in all mechanical respects because some a few been recalled for particular mechanical defects. And the writer is confusing the issue by making it sound in his/her analogy as if scientific consensus is reached through discussion.
Bob Griffin (qouting someone else without attribution): No scientific conclusion is valid unless the raw data on which it is based is available to all for inspection and replication, and no scientific conclusion is valid unless the peer-review process is free of coersion and of ideological bias.
Absolutely. Funnily enough, I remember making a list of raw data which is available to all, corroborates evolution, and denies abrupt creation. Are you going to discuss this now, or are you using this as an excuse to blow more smoke?
Bob Griffin (qouting someone else without attribution): Is there ideological bias in evolutionary biology, as there obviously is in climate science? Perhaps we should ask the 98.7% of evolutionary biologists who don’t believe in a personal God that question.
Where does he get that figure?
Bob Griffin (qouting someone else without attribution): It’s easy to get a ‘consensus’ when one side controls the jury.
It’s also easy to convince the gullible that you’ve demonstrated something when you haven’t simply by stating that you have. Demonstrate that the “side” is controlled in spite of what appear to be independent studies, and I would be able to take this stance a lot more seriously.
Bob Griffin: NIce examples Matt, but were talking about an explosion creating order. Your examples dont fit the bill.
The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion. Your requirements are arbitrary and irrelevant.
Bob Griffin (qouting someone else without attribution): Only if that quest is done within a materialist framework.
Actually, it’s a quest to determine what explanations are consistent with the facts. If supernatural activity does something, science may not be able to explain it, but it would be able to establish its existence.
Let’s say someone had the ability to alter die rolls with his mind. Science could determine that that ability existed by examining the statistics of die rolls when he claimed to be employing his power. It might not be able to explain how it works for some time (if at all), but that’s not the starting point of scientific inquiry anyway.
Bob Griffin (qouting someone else without attribution): I.D. Proponent: But what if that quests needs to go OUTSIDE the materialist framework?
Darwinist: Then it’s not science. And thus, it’s not true.
Pure twaddle attempting to hide a strawman argument. I believe in supernatural stuff. It’s just that I believe that if a supernatural cause is at work, it will not leave effects that look exactly as if a natural cause is at work. (That’s for theological reasons, admittedly — but ultimately, what matters is which parsimonious explanations are consistent with the facts at our disposal. Supernatural explanations should not be dismissed out of hand; they should be dismissed if they fail to be consistent with the facts. Creationism is inconsistent with the facts.)
I was in a big hurry before, Bob but I shall now give your post 123 the attention that I feel it deserves.
“John Einstein didnt know his own phone number.”
Are you trying to compare your example of forgetfulness to Einstein’s forgetfulness?
I may be wrong about this Bob, but I’d bet that Albert wouldn’t have thought it a good idea to bring up in a debate with his opposition something he knew he had trouble remembering/explaining with people he knew would probably, immediately, try and ask him about.
I read those chapters, and they are not about doubts that HE had, as so much as him raising a series of questions and doubts that the READERS and others may have. Did you actually read through them in their entirety? If so, then did you forget that after raising all of those doubts/questions he immediately begins to answer them for the readers, to teach them so they have a better understanding of his theories?
I had, but then that’s why I keep wonderful books like this around to help me reference this sort of a thing if and when it ever gets brought up[smile].
Go and read the chapters again yourself, Bob, and you will see. He was trying to help the readers understand were he was coming from, not just musing out loud about his own confusion.
“But since weve come so far since Darwin, you might not want to waste time questioning your bible.”
Well Bob, YOU are the one who brought the book up, not me[grin].
And you are the one who keeps referring to “The Origin Of Species” as some sort of religious dogma for those who believe in evolution. One might get the impression from reading your posts concerning Darwin’s writings and research that all of today’s prominent scientists have to first consult Darwin’s past works before they decide what to do or think about anything.
Which of course also covers your last sentence within post 123.
Have I not on many occasions encouraged you to read and study modern works and research on this topic?
You have mentioned in the past that you either worked at or near a collage. With access to such a facility of learning why not take advantage of the collage library, or perhaps even enroll in some classes to help you gain a better understanding on the modern[and past]Natural Sciences?
I am not a very highly educated man. I am just a swamp-tromping bibliophile hick who’s love and interest for nature inspired me to read many books on the subject and related subjects.
If I can know as much as I know just from reading books then surely you can empower yourself to an equal or greater measure as well…..if you try.
If not for yourself, then why not do it for your son?
Another enjoyable rebuttal for you.
Creationist Boss: Evolution isn’t science. And if it’s not science, it isn’t true.
Agnostic Employee: Isn’t science the quest for truth about life and the universe?
Creationist: Only if that quest is done within the framework of the Bible.
Employee: But what if that quest needs to go OUTSIDE the framework of the Bible?
Creationist: Then it’s not science. And thus, it’s not true.
Let’s take this debate down to the science department at the local Christian college…
Creationist: Uh, er….well, ah…get to work!
Employee: Boss, I have a great idea. Instead of using typewriters, why don’t we start using
computers? Computers are a lot faster and better.
Boss: Do computers use a mechanical process?
Employee: Well, yes – but what makes them better is their use of information technology.
Boss: We can’t use information technology.
Employee: Why not?
Boss: Because it’s the product of human knowledge and wisdom. We decided a long time ago that wisdom – according to the Bible – only comes from God. Computer theory (or any form of “human intelligence”) must be ruled out.
Employee: Um, but computers are a lot better than typewriters! With computers, we can do twice as much work in half the time! And programs can design themselves from the bottom up – the computer version of evolution!
Boss: Sorry, get back to your typewriter.
In the private sector, that boss would never survive. How much longer can creationism survive?
How much longer? Well, that depends on the tactics they are allowed to use against anyone who questions them.
Firing? Denial of tenure? Taking down the Web site? All have happened. If they get more desperate, more such incidents will happen.
The beauty of creationist arguments is that almost all of them can be turned on their heads and used against them and often quite humorously too. The beauty of creationists is they never see it coming. That’s what happens when you can’t smell your own hypocrisy.
MattF: That’s hilarious. I’ve been the one fighting to keep politics out of these discussions.
“When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% [of scientists] identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.”
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
It’s easy to see how peer review could be unreliable and/or misleading.
MattF: It’s just that I believe that if a supernatural cause is at work, it will not leave effects that look exactly as if a natural cause is at work.
Is there anything observable that you consider the product of supernatural action? I have seen you write that you believe God is behind everything…does this mean all natural occurrences look supernatural to you? If God always operates through logical/orderly means, then, ultimately, how can we discern (with surety) between natural and supernatural?
MattF: Funnily enough, I remember making a list of raw data which is available to all, corroborates evolution, and denies abrupt creation.
How could “abrupt creation” be denied? Couldn’t God have methodically created the universe in a matter of days (as we know them)? In the past you have insisted that a rapid creation event requires magic tricks (or *poofs*), why?
Side question: What does the Bible mean when it says some people lived to be several hundred years old?
MattF – Re: Examples of order from disorder -: Crystallization. Snowflakes. Plants regularly turn assorted minerals, gases, and sunshine into sophisticated plant tissues. Freezing and melting cycles sort stones into regular patterns. Drying mud produces cracks in orderly fashion. Zygotes turn into adults.
None of these examples are order from disorder (in a meaningful sense). All are examples of disorder (on a level we can detect) being whipped into shape by the underlying order of the universe. This reminds me of Transformers – and “the all-spark” (e.g. normal machines like a 7-up machine transform into living robots).
MattF: It’s a consensus in the sense that many independent lines of inquiry point to a singular phenomenon.
Many independent (yet like minded) people may well point to one interpretation of the facts. It doesn’t mean it’s true, of course.
MattF: Try reading for comprehension, Bob. … Did you conveniently forget to read for comprehension again, Bob? … That’s hilarious. …Funnily enough…
Here are some snide remarks from our kind and patient teacher.
Bob (article): Perhaps we should ask the 98.7% of evolutionary biologists who don’t believe in a personal God that question.
MattF: Where does he get that figure?
A different figure – but not far off – about “greater” scientists:
“Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality)”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
b baggins (quoting someone else): “When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% [of scientists] identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.”
Again, so what? We’re talking about the findings of many international groups here, not just scientists in the United States. In any case, let’s find out what the facts are and discuss them. Pointing out the political affiliation of scientists is not any kind of condeming evidence unless you can show which facts are bad and how they relate to the understanding you’re attempting to undermine. Until we can show that the conclusions are bad because the facts don’t match, we can’t condemn the conclusions.
b baggins: It’s easy to see how peer review could be unreliable and/or misleading.
It may be tempting to extrapolate. That doesn’t mean that it’s reasonable to do so.
Ultimately, do you have evidence that the entire peer review process went south in this case? If so, please present it. If not, why are you assuming it?
(I’m reminded that Rush Limbaugh pointed out that he believed that the sheer volume of the emails released in “Climategate” pointed to the idea that they could not have been generated as part of a conspiratorial hoax to cast doubt on scientific investigations into climate change. But somehow, he feels that the overwhelmingly more massive volume of studies, papers, journals, and data presented by scientific organizations all over the world, all acting independently and all with strong incentive to show why everyone else is wrong, have come to the same conclusion as the result of a giant conspiracy. Is it more reasonable to believe in such an enormous conspiracy with absolutely no proof of a conspiracy nearly that large or far-reaching; in the wrongdoing of a single group because things look suspicious; or in the need for investigations to be carried out to determine what wrongdoing was done and exactly what those actions touched and tainted?)
b baggins: Is there anything observable that you consider the product of supernatural action?
I do not believe that I have unquestionably directly witnessed anything supernatural (that is, beyond what we would consider the regular behavior of the Universe); I have some questions about things that I’ve seen happen in people’s lives and in their health, but since I have less than a complete picture about these events, and I am not permitted to observe the effects directly, I can only surmise.
b baggins: I have seen you write that you believe God is behind everything…does this mean all natural occurrences look supernatural to you?
No. “Natural” and “supernatural” are, I believe, different names that we assign to different things we see in the Universe. God is behind all of it. (It might be closer to describe what I believe as “regular” and “irregular” actions of God, but those words have connotations that I don’t believe are accurate.)
b baggins: If God always operates through logical/orderly means, then, ultimately, how can we discern (with surety) between natural and supernatural?
Excellent question!
By “logical/orderly means”, I’m going to assume that you mean that the effects left after one of His actions, whether we woud call it “natural” or “supernatural”, will leave evidence consistent with that action having taken place. This is what I believe.
The conclusion would always have to be provisional, naturally, but it would have to be the result of several controlled experiments on the evidence left behind by the action. I say “several” to make sure that nothing important was missed and that there would be a better chance of eliminating bias.
There are certain things that might make the grade almost immediately by dint of their remarkable nature — an amputee suddenly gaining a functional limb back, for example, or a particular rock suddenly doubling in mass without changing size. There might also be some acts that will be much more difficult to form a conclusion about, because they might be excused on the basis that we don’t know everything (e.g., a person we’ve never seen before who claims not to be able to see red suddenly claims to be able to see red); they might be scams, or they might be consistent with natural properties of things that we don’t know about yet.
Perhaps the answer lies in science’s ability to find out what things aren’t true. If we see evidence that that thing is true after all in this particular instance, we might be more open to supernatural explanations. If the evidence left behind is consistent with a supernatural explanation, and that explanation remains reasonably parsimonious, that supernatural explanation deserves consideration. At the end of the day, we have to ask which explanation is consistent with the facts we have.
I say “reasonably parsimonious” because it’s always possible to move the goalposts and say, “God could have just made it look that way”. Eventually, though, if evidences remain perrfectly consistent with a natural explanation that is demonstrated over and over with investigations and experiments in the lab and in the field, and if evidence is enormously and completely inconsistent with a given supernatural explanation, then there is no good reason to assume that the supernatural explanation is accurate.
Creationism, for example, posits that diverse organisms were abruptly formed, created as new beings in some sense from scratch. However, enormous piles of data we have found is inconsistent with that premise; I’ve listed some of it. It is remarkably and unswervingly consistent with the idea that diverse organisms have their origin as a result of populations with different inherited characteristics diverging from a common ancestor.
Ultimately, of course, science never claims to be sure. In that sense, all of this is quite beside the point. Science can test whether or not a given explanation is false, assuming it has access to the evidence after the fact. And my point from the beginning has been that the claim that creationism is consistent with science is false. The effects that science can test are terribly inconsistent with creationism.
b baggins: How could “abrupt creation” be denied?
I made a list. And reposted it several times.
b baggins: Couldn’t God have methodically created the universe in a matter of days (as we know them)?
He could have, certainly. But the evidence is unambiguous in indicating that He didn’t.
b baggins: In the past you have insisted that a rapid creation event requires magic tricks (or *poofs*), why?
I mean to refer to the idea that diverse species were created suddenly, rapidly, and supernaturally.
I have no problem with the concept; God can create however He wants. I do take issue with the idea that science is consistent with the idea, however, when the evidence we have to indicate the history of organisms rather strongly indicate that they were not formed this way.
b baggins: Side question: What does the Bible mean when it says some people lived to be several hundred years old?
Good question. What does the evidence left behind say, and is it consistent with a literal interpretation of these words? What other interpretations exist that are consistent with the evidence we have?
b baggins: None of these examples are order from disorder (in a meaningful sense).
Then can you tell me what you mean by “order” and “disorder” so that we can discuss this in a meaningful sense?
b baggins: All are examples of disorder (on a level we can detect) being whipped into shape by the underlying order of the universe.
Uh-huh. So’s natural selection. And sexual selection. And genetic drift. And organic chemistry. And gravity. And thermonuclear fusion. And and and and. What distinction is there that makes “massive disorder” and “amazing order” different in the cases I discussed and what Bob wanted?
b baggins: Many independent (yet like minded) people may well point to one interpretation of the facts. It doesn’t mean it’s true, of course.
Of course not. Science is never certain. You’re perfectly free to present another interpretation of the facts, assuming that you can show that that’s what you’re doing. But just dismissing all of them by fiat should rightly be questioned, especially when there is much at stake.
b baggins: Here are some snide remarks from our kind and patient teacher.
I admit that accusations against me that don’t fit my actions, insistence that I don’t do things that I’ve done multiple times, or simple refusal to address the facts I present that are demanded of me so that a contrary stance can be obstinately maintained are underhanded tactics that try my patience. While it may not excuse this kind of snide remark, this kind of dishonesty needs to be addressed; and regrettably, they are not uncommon tactics for our Bob to employ.
b baggins: A different figure – but not far off – about “greater” scientists:
“Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality)”
Okay. We could debate with poll findings and semantics about what they mean all day; if you look here, for example, you’ll see that only 41 percent of biologists claim not to believe in God. But there’s a larger point: What is true does not depend on who believes it.
MattF: Pointing out the political affiliation of scientists is not any kind of condeming evidence unless you can show which facts are bad and how they relate to the understanding you’re attempting to undermine.
It’s good to know the facts. I wasn’t forming any conclusions about global warming. I do have an extra ounce of suspicion now – another reason to weigh the facts myself, if I can access all the information needed (and have the time, etc). I had no idea the scientific community was so one sided politically. Though, if they rely on federal grants I should have guessed.
MattF: Until we can show that the conclusions are bad because the facts don’t match, we can’t condemn the conclusions.
MattF: If not, why are you assuming it?
Whoa, easy there. I didn’t yet condemn the conclusions nor have I assumed peer review failed. Let’s not jump to any rash conclusions.
MattF: While it may not excuse this kind of snide remark, this kind of dishonesty needs to be addressed; and regrettably, they are not uncommon tactics for our Bob to employ.
You are responsible for your own actions. Bob’s tactics seem more respectful/less venomous to me.
MattF – Re: creation in days : But the evidence is unambiguous in indicating that He didn’t.
That is not possible without taking on assumptions. It’s as though you think you know the universe better than you possibly could.
A Supreme Court justice once said that combining religion and politics corrupts politics and demeans religion. Creationists all support the Republican Party as a means to push their religious policy issues, like home schooling or anti-choice legislation. But to get the Republicans to pay attention to their pet issues, they have to support other issues having nothing to do with their religious goals. That’s why we have creationists telling us how God wants us to return to the gold standard or how Jesus hates national health care, and the corruption is complete. What starts out as a sincere religious group using political mechanisms to push some religious ideal, is now a group that lets its religion be used as a tool of political organizations.
Creationists who challenge conventional wisdom should at least be aware of and then read, cite, and specifically refute the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical argument by omitting relevant facts, quoting mining, straw man arguments, bad analogies, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the “intelligent design” movement does this, they are not even in the game. They aren’t even playing the same sport.
A peer-reviewed paper spawns actual research and convinces skeptics. Applicability and acceptance in science is the ultimate test of new scientific ideas. All ID promoters have to do is demonstrate to scientists that they have something that works. They need a positive research program showing that ID has more to offer than “Poof, God did it.” Creationists have been promoting this hoax long enough and have had plenty of time come up with some kind of research program and ways to text their claims. The fact that they haven’t and never will proves their ID dogma is nothing more than a very evil Christian religious hoax.
Finally if Bob and other creationists think scientists fear that creationists will disprove evolution some day they are living in a religious fantasyland. Bible believing Christians have fought against every scientific theory and discovery ever made since the Bible was written and then voted sacred by men. When have scientists ever had to change their views or theories because Bible believing Christians denied and fought against them? Of course they haven’t and they aren’t going to either. Once again we see creationists already revising their claims about the Bible to make it seem compatible with modern science. It’s always the Bible believers who have to knuckle under to their true master which is science.
b baggins: I didn’t yet condemn the conclusions nor have I assumed peer review failed.
Fair enough. Since it seems I misunderstood, I apologize. Still, one might see how I came to the conclusion that you had condemned the conclusions and assumed the failure of peer review with statements like It’s easy to see how peer review could be unreliable and/or misleading (post 133).
b baggins: MattF – Re: creation in days : But the evidence is unambiguous in indicating that He didn’t.
That is not possible without taking on assumptions. It’s as though you think you know the universe better than you possibly could.
Would you agree that the method God used to create the Universe would be logically consistent with the evidence left behind, at least insofar as it is penetrable to empirical inquiry?
If so, then the conclusion that the Universe was created in a small number of calendrical days, with diverse organisms being brought into existence abruptly and fully-formed, becomes rather difficult to justify.
If not, would you at least be willing to agree that science and creationism would not be consistent with one another, since the evidence left behind is not consistent with such a creation method? (And if that’s the case, when should we understand when God’s teaching is consistent with empirical inquiry and when it isn’t? How do we determine which is true, and under what circumstances? Should we go back to understanding that the Earth is fixed and immobile because multiple Scriptural passages teach that it is?)
If God created this Universe to appear to countless methods of independent inquiry exactly as if the Big Bang occurred and that life’s diversity came about through a process of evolution, how much of this evidence would it take — all being perfectly consistent with a very easily falsifiable theory, mind; I gave a list of extremely simple ways to falsify evolution of any stripe, should one be so inclined — before a reasonable person should concede that if God created things, these (the Big Bang and evolution) must be methods He used?
There are assumptions behind any line of reasoning. There should be a reasonable point in anyone’s mind where one should question one’s assumptions. We are well past the point where questioning whether or not evolution occurred or is occurring is rather unambiguous. We are well past the point where pretending that creationism is consistent with science is a viable position. We are well past the point where doubt of Earth’s and the Universe’s extreme age is reasonable. There is a lot more evidence for any of these points than many ideas that science accepts without question (e.g., electrons). To point out that they, like all of science, still leave room for incomplete knowledge at this point is pedantically correct, but a bit silly.
Gurgus: A Supreme Court justice once said that combining religion and politics corrupts politics and demeans religion.
Very true.
Rather than attempting to commandeer one party and bend it to Christian will, it seems much better to me for Christians to be vocal participants in both parties, keeping them responsible while recognizing at the same time that since they are part of the world’s system, we should not expect that they will be interested in doing things after any kind of Christian fashion.
Otherwise, the temptation to “baptize” the party platform into official Christian position becomes great; politicians will be tempted to lie to gain votes among a populace that responds to the right buzzwords, and Christians will be tempted to justify things they shouldn’t in the name of maintaining political influence.
Frankly, from a Christian perspective, politics is a petty thing. Use it to help your fellow man as best you can, but such things are not the instrument of change Christians are supposed to be in the world. We serve a higher power.
Gurgus: All ID promoters have to do is demonstrate to scientists that they have something that works.
Absolutely. Give us an overarching theory that can be tested. Even if that theory has to be tweaked as new information comes in, an explanation that is demonstrably consistent with the facts would go a long way to getting ID proponents what they want in terms of “teaching the controversy” and other such things.
MattF: We are well past the point where questioning whether or not evolution occurred or is occurring is rather unambiguous.
Pooorly phrased. Let me try again: We are well past the point where the question of whether or not evolution has occurred or is occurring is ambiguous.
b baggins: Bob’s tactics seem more respectful/less venomous to me.
I call confirmation bias.
Bob Griffin: What dont you get about the hoaxers? [...] At least Darwin had the guts to put his doubts in print – most unlike todays movement. [...] MattF You are laughable today. [...] MattF You dont get the massive disorder that would happen at the Big Bang?
This doesn’t count other places where he had all sorts of flattering things to say about people who accept evolution in general or me in particular. Again, it doesn’t excuse being snide in response, but it hasn’t been one-sided.
That is one of the troubles in trying to maintain the responsibility and superior position of being a “better man” type, Matt F., most people don’t allow you to be “human” anymore when it comes to losing your temper or making mistakes.
Bob,
Exactly what do I need to reread in my Bible and what exactly am I getting wrong? I need you to be precise. Cutting a debate short because you have no reply by exclaiming things like “you need to reread the Bible – you’re getting it wrong” isn’t a satisfactory response. I can do the same thing. I van say with certainty that you need to read what real scientists say about science and stop getting your science information from people with an obvious religious agenda and who for some amazing coincidence all belong to the same Christian religious sub cult. You also need to read The Origin of Species and stop claiming you already have before you bring up Darwin’s logical questions to the problems of his theory. You obviously don’t know what they were or you wouldn’t keep avoiding John’s repeated requests to provide them.
The problem with you believers is you always have to believe something. The great thing about we atheists is we don’t. We can just think about them. I’m not going to believe any “sides” anyway. The question here is what is it like to see your true motives exposed right here on this blog? Again they are to attempt to equate scientific dissent from global warming with dissent from the rest of the science you creationists have been denying especially evolution but many other long standing and productive theories as well. Junk science is junk science and creationism and ID are junk science. Nothing is ever going to change that. You creationists could change it by using your ID “science” to cure some diseases medical scientists have been unable to cure, make a new medicine or vaccine, intelligently design some new food crops or advance knowledge in some other field. But we both know that is never going to happen and we both know why don’t we Bob?
In your post to Matt and John you said: “NIce examples Matt, but were talking about an explosion creating order.” You creationists insist the Noachian Flood created order and neatly sorted fossils and everything else. What’s more absurd, tiny pockets of complexity amid massive disorder coming from the Big Bang or neatly sorted fossils from a worldwide flood?
John: most people don’t allow you to be “human” anymore when it comes to losing your temper or making mistakes.
Thanks you for understanding, though I have to say that that isn’t the only way people will try to take the easy way out of trying to understand an evidence-based argument by attacking your debating style.
One of the sentences I would like to see removed from everyday parlance is “Tell us how you really feel”. One of the joys of debate is that you get to talk about a subject that you feel passionately about with other people who also feel passionately about it. Even in everyday speech, it’s difficult for me to discuss some of these things without clear excitement getting into my words as I struggle to explain the depth of my feeling and the implications of the evidence I understand in accepting my position. If I can mix in some wit, metaphor, and colorful language, so much the better.
But with a strange sort of smug audacity, this unoriginal, cowardly, feebleminded, tedious, infantile line is delivered, playing to the assumption that in showing emotion, you have admitted weakness and defeat. What sort of confused human being honestly believes that passion is to be avoided in intelligent discussion? Sure, emotions by themselves cannot be the basis of an informed decision, but there’s nothing wrong with strong feeling accompanying certain ideas or issues. We’re human beings, after all. Emotions are one of the bittersweet gifts we have.
Of course, if I try to refrain, I get accused of not having the appropriate amount of wonder or some other emotion that’s just supposed to be automatically and magically generated to a precise degree under well-known circumstances. There’s just no convincing someone who takes issue with the level of emotion you express; it’s a convenient way to avoid having to address points in an argument.
And while I’m ranting about avoiding points in an argument, I have an issue with the way many people use “ad hominem”. To be sure, it’s a fallacy to avoid. But to be precise, you can’t accuse someone of “ad hominem” unless they’ve demonstrated that in attacking your character, they believe they have addressed your argument. Whenever certain people who are altogether too delicately constructed in spirit, mind, or personality sense the smallest suspicion of an insult, they can invoke “ad hominem” and flitter away on sanctimonious wings, delivered unscathed from any need to think about or address any points their opponent may have delivered.
Sure, as a matter of my faith and the way I believe it dictates I should treat my fellow human beings, I should refrain from sarcasm or personal abuse, and I’m far from completely successful on that point(*). And a strategy that consists of little but insults just wastes everyone’s time. But it is not a logical fallacy, in and of itself, to attack someone. The fallacy only arises when the assumption is made that such an attack is also necessarily an attack on their arguments.
So if you can’t show that I’m trying to counter your argument with nothing more than an attack, you can’t demonstrate “ad hominem”. As you might expect, actual “ad hominem” is a lot more rare than accusations of it. And ironically, the fallacy itself is usually committed by the one making the accusation, since they are trying to dismiss their opponent by claiming that their arguments are not worth listening to because they resort to personal attack.
So let’s get this debate going in a proper sense, b, and let’s stop pretending that any personal failings you perceive in me have any impact on the argument at hand. I claim that creationism, counter to its assertions, is grossly inconsistent with science, based on evidences I’ve dragged into these discussions which no creationist has seen fit to even touch(**). Just saying that “It’s as though you think you know the universe better than you possibly could” (post 135) does not address any of the evidence, or even present some of the assumptions which I should be questioning. Science is based on evidence. If you have evidence that creationism is consistent with science, please present it.
(*) I must point out that anyone seriously offended by snide “attacks” I may have made against my opponents on this site have no idea what withering invective really is. Yes, even and especially in certain pockets of the scientific community, where you either present evidence immediately or are torn new orifices on the spot. Declaring that something is so is not nearly enough; you need to be able to explain why you claim it, clearly and unambiguously, or you’re wasting everyone’s time. If I need a little octane in my bloodstream, for example, I enjoy conversations with aerospace scientists and engineers about their field, especially if someone happens to be around complaining ignorantly about what they perceive to be inadequate safety measures or some such thing.
(**) Here’s a quick synopsis courtesy of Google, in case you don’t feel like conducting a search yourself:
Post 104 of “Can a Person Be Saved and Still Believe in Evolution?” details many easy ways to falsify evolution, at least in principle.
Post 184 of part 1 of “Should the Church Celebrate Darwin’s Birthday?” details evidences for evolution which also, coincidentally, happen to contraindicate creationism. (Lists appear again in post 112 of “Was Darwin a Racist?”, post 298 of part 2 of “Should the Church Celebrate Darwin’s Birthday?”, and post 401 of part 3 of “Should the Church Celebrate Darwin’s Birthday?” — some with new evidences, some without, but all lists are necessarily quite abridged.) All of these are evidences that we should consider evolution to be true, even if there were no other competing explanation for the diversity of life. (In other words, they don’t try to show evolution true by showing something else false.)
Posts 416 and 428 of part 1 of “Should the Church Celebrate Darwin’s Birthday?” detail some reasons why creationism (mostly the young-Earth variety) is inconsistent with science, and why the explanations creationism gives for things don’t match the things we observe in the natural world; they merely scratch the surface.
MattF: So let’s get this debate going in a proper sense, b, and let’s stop pretending that any personal failings you perceive in me have any impact on the argument at hand.
There is no debate. I’m an uneducated hill-billy. We’ll have to find a scientist or some such if you want to debate. Or at least let me go to school and work in the field for a few years, after which I’ll get back with you.
MattF: If God created this Universe to appear to countless methods of independent inquiry exactly as if the Big Bang occurred and that life’s diversity came about through a process of evolution, how much of this evidence would it take — all being perfectly consistent with a very easily falsifiable theory, mind
I expect that God did have a method behind His magic. That doesn’t mean I have to reject the timetable established in the Bible. And believing that God created the universe doesn’t mean I have to reject much of today’s science. I could see the world ‘giddying up’ while God was working – in a dream. That is all I needed to know and it’s perfectly feasible, isn’t it?
b baggins: I expect that God did have a method behind His magic. That doesn’t mean I have to reject the timetable established in the Bible. And believing that God created the universe doesn’t mean I have to reject much of today’s science.
Okay. Let me say at the outset that I don’t believe that the timetable mandated by creationists is the only timetable one can derive from a consistent reading of the Bible; and second, that consistency with science is a tricky thing, which I’ll get into more in a bit.
b baggins: I could see the world ‘giddying up’ while God was working – in a dream. That is all I needed to know and it’s perfectly feasible, isn’t it?
Feasible? For an omnipotent God, what isn’t feasible? One can come up with endless scenarios describing what could have happened; for every extra entity added to the description, a footnote can be tacked on to explain that things look different from that explanation because of further hypothetical supernatural action.
For example, there are those who still believe that the Earth is fixed and immobile, as a straightforward reading of Scripture uninformed by observation, discovery, and experiment would indicate. For every indication that the Universe has that such a view does not match the facts, a supernatural intervention can be inserted to allow the “fixed Earth” model to remain consistent(*).
Adherents even insist that their model is consistent with “real science”, that people who teach that the Earth moves and rotates only think so because of a conspiracy to keep dissenting views out of the scientific literature, and on and on.
Such an angle misses what it means to be consistent with science in the first place. Maintaining that the Earth is fixed requires postulating mechanisms that are not known or even required to exist in order to explain things that cannot currently be explained; it’s not parsimonious. Some might question its theology; why would God make it appear to all scientific tests as if the Earth is moving and rotating? If science clearly indicates the Earth’s motion, how can one say that a fixed Earth is consistent with science?
A similar hurdle appears to exist with your postulated scenario. It’s not parsimonious, and some might question the theology (If God makes a Universe appear to be inconsistent with the way it “really is” and gives consistent results to every test we can devise, does that mean that God is dishonest?). We also see absolutely no side-effects of temporal acceleration that any testable theory might predict; nor is there an adequate explanation (or evidence left behind) to indicate why things would “slow down”, or predictions about when (or where) we would expect it to change speed again and to what degree to lend it some falsifiability. It also supposes an external “clock” against which the rate of Universal time can be measured that has not been demonstrated. (Relativity rejects the idea of Universal time, in any event; we have no reason to doubt that this rejection is reasonable, and experimental evidence to corroborate this rejection.)
Unless I misunderstand the picture of what you’re trying to describe, your scenario rejects the findings of observation, discovery, and experiment with no apparent justification other than that it creates some kind of internal consistency with a preferred narrative, as fixed-Earthism and creationism do, and there’s the rub. The question of consistency with science isn’t whether or not unfalisifiable layers of “Yeah, but” can be contrived to keep it all in one package, like retconning a science fiction show to keep the episodes consistent. The question is whether or not your scenario is (a) consistent with observation, experiment, and discovery, and (b) falsifiable, both of which science requires.
Since there is much forensic evidence involved in our knowledge of the Big Bang and evolution, perhaps a forensic analogy would make it more clear. Imagine a crime scene where it appears to all tests as if a victim was fatally drowned, even tests which gather different data sets and do not depend on one another’s results. Someone might pedantically point out that since one can never know all the facts, it is possible that this victim was killed with a high-caliber gunshot to the temple, and that all evidences were subsequently altered to make it look like she drowned. Unfortunately, without some empirical justification for considering a shooting, there’s just no reason to entertain the notion. If you have a mechanism in the natural Universe that is unverifiable even in principle (like an accelerated state that leaves no trace), the same difficulty seems to be present.
Of course, if you’re not claiming to be consistent with science, then all bets are off. I personally think it’s a mistake to expect the Bible’s message to us to be one of scientific education, and that reading it as such can lead one into trouble. (We can allow science to deepen our understanding here, just as it is used in countless other places — but we mustn’t pretend that Scripture is meant to give us an excuse to simply reject plain facts and analysis available to our senses and reason. I would argue that faith exists in addition to logic and empiricism, not in spite of them; that’s denial.)
Or perhaps you have some empirical way of verifying what you say, and you’re keeping it a secret.
If so, I’d entreat you to share, because I’m eager to get on with the trying-to-understand-God-through-His-creation thing, and the promise of understanding something so fundamental and novel promises new insights that I could only guess at, but which are nevertheless exciting to contemplate.
At the end of the day, I’ll admit that your suggestion intrigues me. In your scenario, did life diversify through some kind of accelerated evolution, through sudden and supernatural introduction of new species, or through some other means, and why do you say so? What mechanism might cause a functional timekeeping device not to record 13.73 billion years in an “accelerated Universe” — and if the answer is “nothing”, how is your scenario functionally different from a 13.73 billion-year-old Universe?
(*) In fact, for certain kinds of astronomical observation, it’s actually useful to pretend that this is the case (even though it makes certain others far more complex). The geocentric coordinate system exists to take advantage of the kinds of problems this simplification makes it easier to describe or solve, and one runs into it all over the scientific literature, even in peer-reviewed stuff on the cutting edge of research. But no astronomer seriously entertains the notion that the Earth really is unmoving.
Meanwhile, back in the world of Ray Comfort…
Anyone interested in creationism has no doubt seen Kirk Cameron’s comment when he was a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, asserting that in order to prove evolution, you would need transitional forms — for example, in spite of all our looking, we can’t seem to find a crocoduck.
Not so fast, there, Kirk. We’ve managed to unearth two separate species that could serve as the crocoduck candidate.
First, there’s one found on the southern coast of Peru. It’s a pelagornithid from 10 million years ago. Some think they’re related to ducks (or, if not them, then gannets and pelicans); in any event, it’s a giant, bony-toothed aquatic fowl with a bill. There does appear to be a taxonomical relationship between this thing and order Anseriformes (which includes ducks).
Second, Dr. Paul Sereno recently dug up five species of ancient crocodile in the Sahara (Kaprosuchus saharicus, micknamed “BoarCroc”; Ararupesuchus rattoides, nicknamed “RatCroc”; Laganosuchus thaumastos, nicknamed “PancakeCroc”; Araripesuchus wegeneri, nicknamed “DogCroc”; and Anatosuchus minor, nicknamed — wait for it — “DuckCroc”, which was first discovered four years prior to Kirk Cameron’s use of the “crocoduck” on ABC Nightline and The O’Reilly Factor). They appeared in a television special (When Crocs Ate Dinosaurs) and the November 2009 issue of National Geographic.
Plainly transitional forms, viable candidates for exactly the sort of creature that Kirk claimed would serve as proof of evolution.
Well, maybe not exactly. I expect there will be people who insist that these species don’t count, because they’re not some kind of chimeric mishmash of the two endpoints. Those people have no idea what it is that they’re trying to debate, and I suppose there’s no convincing them anyway. Or it might be pointed out that the real transitional form between crocodiles and ducks — not just a transitional form that looks the part — would be the Archosauria ancestor of Crocodilia and Saurischia (a Theropoda branch from the latter gave rise to ducks), and would have existed about 250 million years ago; but if you understand that, and why this ancestor would not have looked like pieces of modern organisms stitched together, you’ll also understand why the demand for a crocoduck is total nonsense.
(Hey, he didn’t say that he wanted a crocoduck halfway in an ancestral lineage between crocodiles and ducks; he just wanted a transitional crocoduck. To be fair, if he had said that that’s what he wanted, he would have shown his terrible ignorance concerning the subject matter in rather stark relief.)
So why mention this? I dunno. It’s interesting to ponder the contrasts between the real world and the world creationists think we live in. It’s also interesting to contemplate the freedom we have to question, to examine, to test, to try to understand, and if our ideas should turn out to be wrong, to try again, whereas the creationist can only be threatened by things that don’t seem to fit what they know the answers to be from the outset. I rejoice in these findings and wonder what they have to teach us. If Kirk or Ray is even paying attention and being honest with the evidence in front of them, I expect that they’d wish these things would just go away. They’re going to have to invent froggopotamuses or something for next time.
I remember that picture he held up of his Crocoduck.
That image and conversations with Bob and Maz concerning Mermaids has led me to believe that for people like them, only unnatural Chimera-like creatures composed from different “modern” life forms will suffice as an example of a transitional life form[like Bob's Mermaid, or a Green Iguana with a pair of eagle wings where it's front legs should be as an example of a transitional link between modern Avians and Theropods], while any natural-looking life form will easily be branded as being just another example of some “kind”[except for the Duck-billed Platypus, perhaps, which is about as chimeric an animal as anyone could hope to find in nature, but is ironically used by Young Earth Christian Creationist to try and debunk evolution, instead of them thinking of it as a...uh..."beavaduck" transitional life form], thus practically rendering everything a hopeless waste of time for everybody involved.
So, what to do?
John: So, what to do?
My first thought, and instinctive reply, was that all that’s necessary is to open the door a crack. If they can see just a little bit about what’s really out there, they’ll see that creationism is misguided, even when it’s well-intentioned.
But reflection has caused me to stumble over the idea that there also has to be something beneath that. For me, there were three convictions that came into play that were probably key in discovering the truth concerning creationism.
First, there’s the idea that the truth has nothing to fear. If something is true, it will be consistent with other things that are true, even if that consistency is not obvious. If there is a testable description of the Universe, the Universe itself will show the truth or falsehood of these descriptions, if one is careful and patient in the questions one asks. And, finally, if something is true, it’s true, and one’s feelings about it are irrelevant to that.
Second, the truth is bigger than you think. No one and no group knows all truth, and a casual study of human nature reveals that people are much easier to fool than one might want to believe. That said, no matter what you think, you’re probably wrong. The only saving grace is that “right” and “wrong” are not singular categories when it comes to descriptions about the Universe; some descriptions are more wrong than others. The best we can do is to place high demands on claims about the Universe and to always be open to new ideas that bring evidence in an effort to be as un-wrong as possible.
Third, uncertainty is okay. There’s no requirement that the way things are has to fit inside a human brain. One never has all the facts, so withholding judgment is allowed; and if and when you finally do decide what you think is accurate, try to understand as best you can what the limits of your understanding are and what it would take to change your mind about what you “know”.
These underlying outlooks aren’t universal among humanity. I’m not sure that you can teach them if they’re not there. It occurs to me that if someone lacks these convictions or has different ones instead, they’re unlikely to change their minds about creationism.
For example, look at idea number one. What if a person feels that the truth is slippery and fragile, that it is not something to be struggled toward and shared whenever ground is gained, but instead is something to be hid and carefully kept to protect it from damage? Or instead of idea number two, someone thinks that it’s not just possible to have The Truth — it’s possible to have The Answers as well, and there is a level of human understanding that can assert itself to be true and give answers to all questions, no matter what? Or instead of idea number three, someone thinks that questions must be answered if they are to be meaningful; or, alternatively, that there is some foundation that must be absolutely certain — not a Person or a faith or a hope, but some knowledge that must remain unshakeable to serve as a basis for examining old things in light of new information?
If someone disagrees on these levels, I’m not sure that bringing any evidence to the table is going to change their minds or their outlook. There may be levels beneath these; it’s entirely possible that I’m not thinking about this deeply enough. What concerns me, though, is that we may be getting beneath the mental level where it’s possible to teach someone disinclined to learning.
Matt,
Your entire monologue is based on the incorrect assumption that creationists really want to know the truth about the universe and life. People adopt creationism precisely because they DON’T want to know the truth. The truth hurts dude.
Gurgus: People adopt creationism precisely because they DON’T want to know the truth.
Some may. I think most people who embrace creationism simply don’t know any better, because the truth is not immediately obvious in most people’s experience.
Let me illustrate what I mean by that. Consider the fact that all maps are wrong. The Earth is not flat, even over regional distances, though one can treat it as such for most everyday purposes. It’s not until you’re doing something where the incorrect nature of this simplification becomes apparent that it even matters to most people, or that most people will even consider it. The fact is that even though it’s round, it doesn’t curve away “quickly” on a human scale; it’s round, but as far as most people are concerned, it’s really, really close to flat.
The Sumerians were smart. They didn’t believe the Earth was flat because they didn’t want to know the truth. They believed it was flat because, to most people’s experience, it might as well be flat.
In similar fashion, the idea that the Earth moves is not obvious. It had to be demonstrated once conclusive evidence started to come out that it does.
I’m willing to bet most people couldn’t even begin to tell you how we know that the Earth is round, or how we know that the Earth moves; most of the time, they can get away with simply acting like it isn’t and it doesn’t, since it makes no difference to how they live their lives.
Likewise, the idea that “kinds” are immutable over six or ten thousand years is really, really close to the idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor over 3.5 billion years — at least, on a human scale. As far as most people’s everyday experience is concerned, they see no more “incorrectness” in abrupt creationism than they see in flat maps.
In a sense, then, for some, ignorance of the proper information one needs in order to properly understand evolution is analogous to ignorance of the proper information one needs in order to properly understand that the Earth is not flat.
I can’t have been the only creationist to have believed in it because of a simple ignorance of the right observations and discoveries and exposure to teachers who were willing to take advantage of that ignorance(*). Sure, I imagine that there are some out there who Will Not Change Their Minds, no matter what the facts are. But they’re kind of unreachable, aren’t they? I’m hoping that there’s someone out there who really wants to explore and discover, and who is unafraid of whatever strange implications we may find as we do. For the Christian, I’d argue that there’s a really exciting opportunity to come to know God in ways one might never have expected in such a pursuit.
(*) I mean, there’s a line of teaching out there that says that creationists and “evolutionists” merely come to different conclusions because they’re starting with different assumptions, even though both accept the data — and there are creationists who believe it. For such a teaching to gain traction, people have to be ignorant of the kind of data that shows the distinction, right?
MattF. post 147 and 149,
MmmmHMMMMMMmmmmmmmmm…………..[stares thoughtfully into the distance while stroking chin with thumb and index finger of left hand, right eyebrow raised higher than the left]…
This site is proof that the intellectually curious have the staying power and will eventually outlast those that need a small and well defined (even if factually flawed) existence.
Matt,
You say you are hoping to find someone out there who really wants to explore and discover, and who is unafraid of whatever strange implications we may find as we do. Have you not found anyone like this among creationists you have met so far? Have they all been in the “will not change their minds” category? Your post offers interesting perspective but you didn’t discuss why so many creationists refuse to change their minds. I stand by my contention that this is because humans are political animals and creationists are using their creationist ideology to support their political platform. As an atheist I notice that avowed creationists always seem more interested in changing our views on issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, global warming, gay marriage and other controversial political issues than in getting us to accept Jesus and be saved. These people pretend their creationist views are based on science and logic first and foremost and only confirm what the Bible says. The creationists do as much as possible to distance themselves from religion in conversations with atheists, or other people who disagree with them. They only invoke the ‘Word of God’ when they get cornered in an argument or to put the stamp of approval on one of their own pet political views.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that young earth and young immovable earth creationists have this all or nothing theology. One is either a young earth creationist or an atheist, there’s no middle of the road except heretics like you and you might as well be an atheist as far as they’re concerned. To them accepting modern science means accepting modern liberal ideology as well since they believe the former is the root “cause” of the latter.
The biggest reason creationists will not change their minds in the face of convincing evidence is the fear of eternal punishment in hell. The most often used reason for rejecting convincing evidence is that Satan is only tempting them, making the evidence only LOOK convincing. Discussing science with frightened people with so many reasons to reject it and defense mechanisms in solidly place to help them do so is just a waste of time.
If you discuss politics with creationists you’ll find their arguments are even weaker and more bizarre than the ones they use against scientific progress. For there are really no good arguments for letting the government turn women into breeding animals, for banning stem-cell research, for not cleaning up the planet or for not letting gay people get married. Conservative political ideas are so archaic, counter-productive, unpopular, and have such an awful history. So we have people in this country who attempt to prop them up with backward superstitions from the literal reading of an ancient holy book. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Unless you’re a creationist.
Kash post 151,
Yes, it SEEMS that way. I truely would like for the Ted Wrights, Ray Comforts, and William Dembskie’s of the world to hand around and debate with us. I can respect Bob and Maz for at least being able to show such an astounding attendence in comparison.
It’s good to hear from you again and know that you’re still hanging around, Kash[smile].
kash: This site is proof that the intellectually curious have the staying power and will eventually outlast those that need a small and well defined (even if factually flawed) existence.
That’s an interesting statement. If true, I wonder if it’s because the intellectually curious are more willing to accept that there’s lots they don’t know, and are more willing to stick around to see if anyone has interesting bits to offer that they wouldn’t otherwise consider. Just a thought.
Gurgus: Have you not found anyone like this among creationists you have met so far? Have they all been in the “will not change their minds” category?
So far, no, I haven’t met any creationists who demonstrate the kind of curiosity that is capable of changing their minds about things. But I have to believe that there are a few — and I say this only because of my own experience, as with any statements of this nature, so take this with a grain of salt — simply don’t know how to put the pieces together, or simply don’t have the pieces in the first place.
It would seem that changing one’s mind about these things is not a very quick process. Even as a creationist, I’d have called myself curious and would have considered that a positive trait.
But in coming around to understanding the facts of the matter, there was a lot of wrong thinking to undo. Creationism teaches warped ideas of what logic is, what science is, and what counts as solid evidence. “Evidences” that teachers hand out with apparent understanding and authority are shown to be misrepresentative of the facts or just plain invented. Some even tie devotion and loyalty into their teachings by intertwining them with deep theological ideas, and threatening that the whole shebang threateans to collapse if one shows the slightest hint of accepting something so noisome as evolution, simply declaring that kind of fragility by fiat. That little entangled imbroglio is not all undone in a flash of insight. It takes time to unravel the layers, which can often go surprisingly deep. That’s why patience is required.
In addition to the disincentive to say anything while you’re fishing around for answers, I think that the creationist stance that any other ideas about the origin of life’s diversity reveal a dangerous and compromised faith tend to mean that most of the people I am going to interact with are not the sort who are searching, but the sort who are stubbornly sticking to their ideas. It seems to me that even if I do manage to help someone by trying to lay out the facts of the matter, it will probably be someone who isn’t saying anything. There’s a kind of self-selection going on that means that most creationists I talk to in a forum like this won’t be interested in disucssing facts.
And I can’t say that I’m nearly as bold or collected in my speech as I can afford to be in my writing, where deeper thought can occur and references easily checked.
Gurgus: Your post offers interesting perspective but you didn’t discuss why so many creationists refuse to change their minds.
To be honest, I balk at the idea that all people who refuse to change their minds do so for a singular reason, or even for a few reasons.
Gurgus: I stand by my contention that this is because humans are political animals and creationists are using their creationist ideology to support their political platform.
I’m sure that there are many creationists out there for whom your description is apt. But it’s rare that any group with whom one disagrees is some sort of cultural monolith, with no possible intellectual deviation in the entire group. Ones who are willing to think about the facts and the evidence may be rare, but I’m willing to stick it out for them.
Gurgus: As an atheist I notice that avowed creationists always seem more interested in changing our views on issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, global warming, gay marriage and other controversial political issues than in getting us to accept Jesus and be saved.
There is that segment of Christianity as it is practiced here in the States, and it’s an unfortunately large one. I honestly don’t think that’s the sort of thing that following Christ is supposed to be about, but that’s just my opinion.
Gurgus: These people pretend their creationist views are based on science and logic first and foremost and only confirm what the Bible says.
Some honestly believe it; they’re not just pretending. It’s what I’d have told you as a creationist, and I’d have thought I was telling you the truth. Some of the arguments creationist teachers use are logical enough on the face of them, but their premises are deeply flawed. Others appeal to “common sense” or a sense of fair play and mistake it for reason. Creationist teachers are quite skilled at giving you enough information for you to think that you understand an argument, so there’s no pressing need — outside of one’s own curiosity — to dig any deeper. (The chief tactic here seems to be erecting strawman opponents and knocking them down.)
Gurgus: The creationists do as much as possible to distance themselves from religion in conversations with atheists, or other people who disagree with them. They only invoke the ‘Word of God’ when they get cornered in an argument or to put the stamp of approval on one of their own pet political views.
There are some Christians out there whose outlook borders on the paranoid, I’ll grant you. They live in a perpetual sense that they need to “circle the wagons”. Any question is an attack; any insult is persecution; any contrary idea is a temptation. Such an outlook tends to be very frightened and insulated.
But I’m not here for them. I’m here for people who might be confused, but who are willing to find out what the facts are, even if they seem strange.
Creationism is not a collection of people who have determined to shut their brains off. Some may well have done so, but I don’t have the numbers to believe that it’s sufficient to serve as a defining characteristic. Creationism is an internally consistent intellectual cocoon; some use it as a shell and don’t care to venture outside it, others are completely unaware that existence without a cocoon is possible, and still others who had thought it was a shell are only now beginning to perceive its weaknesses, and are trying to determine what they mean.
Gurgus: Another thing I’ve noticed is that young earth and young immovable earth creationists have this all or nothing theology. One is either a young earth creationist or an atheist, there’s no middle of the road except heretics like you and you might as well be an atheist as far as they’re concerned. To them accepting modern science means accepting modern liberal ideology as well since they believe the former is the root “cause” of the latter.
Well, yes — that, too, appears to often be part of the package. But one in a position to think honestly about creationism may also be in a position to reconsider their politics, or to find evidence-based reasons to form a stance rather than simply parroting a teacher’s words.
Honestly, politics isn’t something that I try to invest too much energy in. I’m annoyed by attempts to stifle scientific findings, since I believe that science is one means God has given us to try to determine ways to alleviate suffering(*); denial of the way the world really behaves doesn’t do anyone any good, and might well do harm, and so I had some small amount of activity in a group that pushed for removal of governmental manipulation of scientific discussion. But politics seems mostly to be about exerting control over people, and that’s just not something I have a great deal of interest in.
Gurgus: The biggest reason creationists will not change their minds in the face of convincing evidence is the fear of eternal punishment in hell. The most often used reason for rejecting convincing evidence is that Satan is only tempting them, making the evidence only LOOK convincing.
If that’s so, then why worry about pretending that creationism is consistent with science? Why would that teaching even exist?
This seems to go back to my belief that the truth is self-consistent. The determination for whether some evidence appears convincing or not shouldn’t merely rest with how the evidence looks to you. (This is what I mean when I say that creationism can mess up one’s ideas about what counts as solid evidence, and why the difference between “common sense” and logic matters.)
Gurgus: Discussing science with frightened people with so many reasons to reject it and defense mechanisms in solidly place to help them do so is just a waste of time.
I’d agree with that if I firmly believed that creationists were generally irredeemable and if I believed that the only people to witness my conversations would be irredeemable creationists. Or, as a corollary, if I believed that creationists that appear irredeemable to me must in fact be irredeemable.
John: I truely would like for the Ted Wrights, Ray Comforts, and William Dembskie’s of the world to hand around and debate with us.
As would I.
(*) Carl Sagan asserted that more lives have been saved through scientific discoveries related to medicine and agriculture than have been forcibly extinguished in all the wars in human history. I have no idea if it’s true or not, but what a compelling idea!
Matt,
Let’s get to the truth about creationism. Have you ever met a white creationist who wasn’t a racist? Have you ever met a racist who wasn’t a biblical creationist? I haven’t. Racism is the never-mentioned but always-present real reason for rejecting evolution and common descent. Deep within every creationist is the secret fear that evolution and common descent mean we’re related to THEM! And we all know who THEY are. Now you may think I am creating a straw man argument since the Bible does indeed say we are all descended from a common ancestor. My point is that creationists don’t want to accept that they may be descended from a black Adam and Eve and science says the first humans were Africans. Instead they believe that black people are an undesirable offshoot from the original perfect humans, the sons of Ham. Creationists believe that the differences between races are a degeneration caused from The Fall. So the creationists believe that white people are a direct line from perfect humans and black people are a degenerated branch of humanity.
Creationism gives these racists a religious and supposedly scientific basis for their hate and fear of other races especially African Americans. It’s time we took off the gloves and exposed the awful truth about creationism and the true racist motives of the creationists.
Gurgus: Have you ever met a white creationist who wasn’t a racist?
My extended family.
I haven’t methodically marched through every ethnicity people have ever imagined, asked about them, and assembled their opinions, but I grew up with them, and I think it fair to assume that they’re not racist. Rather dyed-in-the-wool when it comes to creationism, though.
Gurgus: Have you ever met a racist who wasn’t a biblical creationist?
Personally? No, I don’t think so. Of course, it’s hard to get people to admit to being racist nowadays; such a thing has to be picked up indirectly. But many of the founders of the United States were slave owners, and were not Bible believers; they tended to be Deists.
Gurgus: Racism is the never-mentioned but always-present real reason for rejecting evolution and common descent.
I suppose some might be so keen on keeping their racism that they reject evolution and common descent. If someone wanted to embrace beliefs that allowed them to jusitfy their racism, it seems to me that it would be a shorter leap from the Modern Synthesis over to, say, Lamarckism than over to Biblical creationism.
Gurgus: Deep within every creationist is the secret fear that evolution and common descent mean we’re related to THEM! And we all know who THEY are.
Every creationist?
There were some rather ugly creationists early in that movement’s history. Louis Aggasiz, for example. People loved to hire him to come and lecture about polygenism (the belief that races originated separately, were unequally endowed in their abilities and faculties, and that the races were defined by climate), which justified their beliefs in treating Negroes as somehow sub-human.
But this does not imply that all creationists embrace their beliefs to justify their racism, however, then or now. Such an accusation is rather remarkable, and would really need extremely solid evidence before I even think about accepting it.
There are not a few modern creationist teachers who insist that evolution is a means of justifying racism (since they seem to think that evolution describes some kind of stratification of organisms), and who do so rather triumphantly — “Evolution teaches that there are different levels of human, but the Bible tells us that we’re all descended from Adam, that there’s no distinction between Jew and Greek (or male and female, or slave and freeman, or whatever).” You may have heard that Expelled misquotes Darwin in order to propose that he was a racist, implying that accepting evolution makes one a racist by association. That kind of argument is good enough for a lot of people, sadly; in their justifiable desire to be as disconnected from racism as possible, they’ll drop any idea or movement that they are told is even remotely related. This would seem to indicate that racism is a dirty word, even among creationists.
Gurgus: My point is that creationists don’t want to accept that they may be descended from a black Adam and Eve and science says the first humans were Africans.
I haven’t even tried asking creationists that I know about this. It seems like it would be natural to assume that Adam and Eve were black. Jesus Himself probably had much darker skin than He’s commonly depicted as having; He and His family hid out in Egypt while He was young, and I don’t remember seeing any indication that they stuck out.
Gurgus: Instead they believe that black people are an undesirable offshoot from the original perfect humans, the sons of Ham. Creationists believe that the differences between races are a degeneration caused from The Fall. So the creationists believe that white people are a direct line from perfect humans and black people are a degenerated branch of humanity.
I know this sort of thinking was used to justify enslavement and any number of evil practices, but I find it difficult to believe that large numbers of creationists still believe this. What kind of evidence do you have that this is still the case?
Gurgus post 155,
While it is true that many theological-based groups that are bigoted and promote racism seem to be Christian Creationist/Biblical literalists[Like the K.K.K. for example], it is not the case that ALL Christian Creationists are racists, behind closed doors or publicly, for if this were true then why would Young Earth Christian Creationist both here[Like Character Maz, for example] and in higher places of power[Like Ken Ham, one of the Y.E.C. greats] promote the idea that racism stems from and is promoted by an “evolutionary/secular world view”? Ken Ham seeeeeeeeems to be VERY opposed to racism[ Check out Chapter 17, pg. 220 "Are There Really Different Races?" within his book titled "The New Answers Book" were he says things like "Those consistently living out their Christian faith realize that the forced enslavement of another human being goes against the biblical teaching that allhumans were created in the image of God and are of equal standing before him[Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11] Indeed the most ardent abolitionists during the past centuries were Bible-believing Christians.”-page 225], and Maz has made remarks in the past that showed her anti-racist attitude towards other human beings[I can find them and provide you with the site titles and post numbers if you wish, I just don't remember them right now. They are found within other threads concerned with evolution.].
Christian Creationists mainly seem to be biased against other theological belief systems[which is to be expected, naturally]and the sciences in the case of Young Earth Christian Creationists, but unless I am mistaken that is all.
In case “Climategate” wasn’t enough for you, I give you… Science-gate!
Not recommended for those without the ability to think critically… or laugh at silly humans.
Matt and John,
The Bible was by Christians used to defend slavery and also by the abolitionists to fight against it. This demonstrates the Bible’s ambiguity. I’m not implying that creationism promotes institutional racism or anything like that. Racism doesn’t stem from creationist beliefs. What I’m saying is that racists use creationism to support their racist beliefs. Here again the Bible is so ambiguous that it can be used to support racism and of course a more proper reading will show racism is wrong.
Also racism doesn’t always translate to prejudice, hate, fear or other negative beliefs. Many times it is simply a misunderstanding of people different than oneself. Creationism does give people a very distorted worldview especially about our true origins and the origins of the races.
Matt that was a funny video. I’ve been reading about the global warming controversy. The anti-science crowd calls re-evaluating methodology “faking evidence.”
Gurgus: The Bible was by Christians used to defend slavery and also by the abolitionists to fight against it. This demonstrates the Bible’s ambiguity.
Indeed. I find it curious that the Bible has little to say about slavery in general. Don’t treat your slaves in such and such a way, and here’s what you do if someone doesn’t want to be set free when it’s time, but not much about the institution of slavery itself.
Gurgus: I’m not implying that creationism promotes institutional racism or anything like that. Racism doesn’t stem from creationist beliefs. What I’m saying is that racists use creationism to support their racist beliefs.
Okay. But you can understand how we could get that you were suggesting that creationism produces racism from statements like “Deep within every creationist is the secret fear that evolution and common descent mean we’re related to THEM! And we all know who THEY are”, don’t you?
Gurgus: Also racism doesn’t always translate to prejudice, hate, fear or other negative beliefs. Many times it is simply a misunderstanding of people different than oneself. Creationism does give people a very distorted worldview especially about our true origins and the origins of the races.
To be fair, stories about the origin of the “races” (e.g., Cain’s “mark” was dark skin; or all “races” descended from Noah’s three sons, one per kid) are traditions that have been tacked onto the Bible by people who claim to believe it. There’s no story in the Bible that tells us where “races” come from. Nationalities, sure, but under most definitions, they’re not the same thing.
Gurgus: Matt that was a funny video. I’ve been reading about the global warming controversy. The anti-science crowd calls re-evaluating methodology “faking evidence.”
Yeah. It would be extremely unusual for there to have been no wrongdoing over the course of years and years of study, but the more facts that are uncovered, the more it seems that all these accusations of hiding the facts and altering the results are nothing more than scientists being ornery about detractors, perceived dishonesty in media outlets, and a public that doesn’t understand how science is done.
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” Albert Einstein said that. If he’d said it anywhere close to people seeing gross negligence in “Climategate”, they’d have roasted him alive, never mind the truth or falsehood of any of his theories.
Gurgus post 159,
Really? From reading your post 155 I was under the impression that you were painting ALL Christian Creationist with the same big ol brush, and I was wondering how you were going to try and explain yourself[toothy grin]. Yes I know that the Christian Bible contains more than enough ambiguity for just about any kind of a person reading it to justify almost any kind of behavior that happens to tickle their fancy, but people who are hateful, ignorant, prideful, stupid, or insecure enough to promote something like racism or sexism, especially in THIS age, will always find some way or something somewhere to be used to justify their beliefs and actions, be it the Christian Bible or something else, and despite what the Christian Bible in all of it’s many versions may or may not say about such matters, one must not overlook what Christianity has become in this modern age, for I believe that Christians and Christianity as a whole have “evolved” with the times to become more enlightened and tolerant. It happens with any theological belief system that is so wide spread and has been around for so long.
A self-serving idea of theological-based elitism just happens to be a very convenient and socially/politically motivating tool to be used by the wicked to satisfy their desires..
There will always be people like this in the universe and we the “better people” will just have to learn from the mistakes of the past and deal with the current and next generations of hateful bigots as and when they become available to us by the best our abilities.
Funny video MattF[grin].
I’m so glad that gravity was added as a part of the big lie…..now maybe I can get that darned broom to finally fly me around!!!
MattF: A similar hurdle appears to exist with your postulated scenario. It’s not parsimonious, and some might question the theology (If God makes a Universe appear to be inconsistent with the way it “really is” and gives consistent results to every test we can devise, does that mean that God is dishonest?).
The universe only appears inconsistent (from the way it “really is”) to the dishonest person. How could God be viewed as dishonest (in light of this)?
MattF: We also see absolutely no side-effects of temporal acceleration that any testable theory might predict; nor is there an adequate explanation (or evidence left behind) to indicate why things would “slow down”, or predictions about when (or where) we would expect it to change speed again and to what degree to lend it some falsifiability.
There would be no detectable “side-effects” in the event of methodical creation event – everything would still make sense.
MattF: It also supposes an external “clock” against which the rate of Universal time can be measured that has not been demonstrated. (Relativity rejects the idea of Universal time, in any event; we have no reason to doubt that this rejection is reasonable, and experimental evidence to corroborate this rejection.)
How’s that? I doubt that’s a necessary supposition.
MattF: Unless I misunderstand the picture of what you’re trying to describe, your scenario rejects the findings of observation, discovery, and experiment with no apparent justification other than that it creates some kind of internal consistency with a preferred narrative…
What observation, discovery, and experiment is rejected by the picture I began to describe?
MattF: Of course, if you’re not claiming to be consistent with science, then all bets are off. I personally think it’s a mistake to expect the Bible’s message to us to be one of scientific education, and that reading it as such can lead one into trouble.
I wouldn’t worry about claiming to be consistent with science. We have no reason to think that much of the Bible is “consistent with science”. The idea the “murder is wrong”, for example, cannot be or simply is not addressed by science. Many atheists seek the parsimonious, as you keep repeating, razoring out God and ideas like “murder is wrong”. So, they say they don’t murder because they personally feel it is wrong.
MattF: and if the answer is “nothing”, how is your scenario functionally different from a 13.73 billion-year-old Universe?
The only function is reading the Bible in peace.
MattF: Or perhaps you have some empirical way of verifying what you say, and you’re keeping it a secret.
No, of course not. I just prayed and had a dream about it – had a glimpse of it happening – that’s all. And I don’t have a problem with it.
b baggins: The universe only appears inconsistent (from the way it “really is”) to the dishonest person. How could God be viewed as dishonest (in light of this)?
All right. Perhaps I misunderstood. I took your description to mean that God somehow “sped up” the Universe’s development, so that what would normally take nearly 14 billion years took only six days according to some kind of clock external to the Universe itself.
If that is the case, and if (as you point out later) there is no way to determine this by studying the Universe, even in principle, then God has made the Universe to appear in a way that it is not to every line of empirical inquiry, both those that have been devised and to any that can be devised.
When Romans 1:20 says that God’s invisible attributes can be plainly seen in creation, then, it is a creation which is deliberately altered so as not to indicate the way God really worked. It is also a Universe created in ways that are important to some independent and indiscernable clock, when relativity rejects such a thing. These attributes would seem to be deceptive.
Of course, it’s possible that you don’t see it that way. Just trying to explain my own thoughts on the matter, really.
b baggins: There would be no detectable “side-effects” in the event of methodical creation event – everything would still make sense.
Then why suppose that this method exists? Suggesting an event without empirical justification removes parsimony from any explanation or theory.
b baggins: What observation, discovery, and experiment is rejected by the picture I began to describe?
If I understand your description aright, those would be the observations, discoveries, and experiments that seem to bear out relativity’s rejection of a sort of Universal “clock”, relative to which the Universe can be said to speed up, slow down, or run at a rate we recognize.
There have been multiple experiments involving atomic clocks — in motion, at altitude, under acceleration, and so on — that demonstrate this. Global Positioning Satellites make use of the knowledge that there is no external, Universal “clock” in order to accurately determine positions on the Earth’s surface. Other experiments that indicate that motion cannot be considered absolute (all the way back to Michelson-Morley) could, in principle, be applied to show that time is a property of the circumstances of its measurement.
I can give you citations if you’re interested in digging deeper.
b baggins: I wouldn’t worry about claiming to be consistent with science. We have no reason to think that much of the Bible is “consistent with science”. The idea the “murder is wrong”, for example, cannot be or simply is not addressed by science. Many atheists seek the parsimonious, as you keep repeating, razoring out God and ideas like “murder is wrong”. So, they say they don’t murder because they personally feel it is wrong.
But you’re making a claim about the nature of the Universe, which science is capable of addressing.
I’ve admitted on these fora in the past that God must fail every Occam’s Razor test if it is true that one must approach Him by faith. I accept that there are ideas which Christians embrace that Occam’s Razor would remove. However, it seems to me that those explanations would be supernatural in nature (kind of by definition, since empirical tests would not reveal them). I believe that God has constructed His Universe in such a way as to reveal Himself [Psalm 19:1-6, 89:11-12; Isaiah 45:7-9, 11-12; Romans 1:18-23; and others], not so that people who examined it could not help but get the wrong idea.
b baggins: The only function is reading the Bible in peace.
Okay. And if you’re honestly not concerned about whether or not your beliefs are consistent with science, I guess there’s nothing much more to say. (Frankly, even if a young-Earth creationist were not concerned about being consistent with science, there’s not much I could say. I trust that you could still see that the claim that young-Earth creationism is consistent with science would still be wrong, though.)
Who knows? I expect that when I get to Heaven, God will give me a big pile of paper all about things I got wrong and tell me to go sit in the corner and read so as to understand. It may turn out that your presented idea is right and I, because of preconceived notions about what kind of things empirical inquiry will reveal and personally flawed interpretations of Scripture, would never have seen it.
>The idea the “murder is wrong”, for example, cannot be or simply is not addressed by science. Many atheists seek the parsimonious, as you keep repeating, razoring out God and ideas like “murder is wrong”. So, they say they don’t murder because they personally feel it is wrong.
Here the believer is clearly implying that there is some connection between belief in the supernatural and morality, specifically ideas like “murder is wrong”. Yet he has absolutely not one shred of evidence that there is. Then he brazenly goes on to accuse atheists of trying to razor out the idea that murder is wrong. This is what I really hate about religion, the hijacking of morality and ethics. Many people have fallen for the idea that religion is the source of morality and most of them cannot separate the two. This lie has been perpetrated for thousands of years and people still continue to fall for it. All primates have innate morality and humans are primates. There are no amoral primate groups simply because a sense of morality is necessary for the efficient running of any group or society. As I have stated recently on this blog, humans are political animals. Therefore we need to live within societies and feel respected by them and especially by our neighbors, friends and colleagues. Humans act morally because it makes us feel good about ourselves and gets us better friends and allies. We are naturally moral because we have developed complex instincts to help us in social situations. Being good and moral is the right thing to do for our own selfish self-interest. We have a satisfactory explanation for human morality: Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection. No supernatural explanation is necessary nor could it ever be proved.
The Bible has a commandment against murder. So what? Are we supposed to believe that people just murdered other people and this went unpunished before this command supposedly came out of a burning bush or before the Bible was written? Should we believe humans can have come up with all the inventions we have, gone to the moon and back and we never would have figured out murder was wrong unless the Bible had a commandment against it? That isn’t what makes murder wrong. All ancient holy books have that same commandment and some of them predate the Bible. All societies that predate the Hebrew society had laws against murder, stealing, bearing false witness and other crimes as well including societies great distances from the Near East. Where did these laws in societies that had never heard of the Hebrew God come from exactly? Obviously God cannot be the source of commonly accepted HUMAN morals, ethics and values.
In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during the middle decades of the twentieth century millions of people were brought up in thoroughly atheist states and the majority of the households and communities within those states were also atheist. Yet there was no collapse of morality or values. You would have been much more likely to be murdered, robbed or raped in any major U.S city than in any city in the Soviet Union during that time. Why? Because God cannot punish the murderer or other criminal, only we humans can. Does anybody really think any crimes have not been committed because of a fear of God? How many crimes and atrocities have been committed in the name of God or Jesus though?
There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that can help us discover ultimate morality. We already know it when we see it. We’re primates. How do believers know their “good book” is really good? As I have already shown on this blog believers clearly read the Bible to find support for moral principles they have already developed from other sources. And since there are so many of us whose sense of right and wrong conflicts with the teachings of the Bible and religion we can conclude our sense of morality did not come from God, the Bible or religion. There is no link between belief in the supernatural and God and morality.
“The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion” – Arthur C. Clarke
MattF: I took your description to mean that God somehow “sped up” the Universe’s development, so that what would normally take nearly 14 billion years took only six days according to some kind of clock external to the Universe itself.
So science can say the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, but Genesis can’t say creation occured in six days? Where’s the rub? In the change? I don’t see that substantiated.
MattF: When Romans 1:20 says that God’s invisible attributes can be plainly seen in creation, then, it is a creation which is deliberately altered so as not to indicate the way God really worked. It is also a Universe created in ways that are important to some independent and indiscernable clock, when relativity rejects such a thing. These attributes would seem to be deceptive.
What do you mean? You expect to understand exactly how God created the universe from the little bubble you live in – and if you can’t, somehow that’s trickery on God’s part? Tell that to the Judge.
MattF: If I understand your description aright, those would be the observations, discoveries, and experiments that seem to bear out relativity’s rejection of a sort of Universal “clock”, relative to which the Universe can be said to speed up, slow down, or run at a rate we recognize.
Are you saying God is some sort of Universal “clock”? And relativity rejects that sort of thing…what can I say.
MattF: There have been multiple experiments involving atomic clocks — in motion, at altitude, under acceleration, and so on — that demonstrate this.
So if Jesus is flying through space at the speed of light, life on earth could progress thousands of years – while he’ll have only been zooming for moments or less?
MattF: But you’re making a claim about the nature of the Universe, which science is capable of addressing.
Science can only make an assumption on this point, I thought.
MattF: However, it seems to me that those explanations would be supernatural in nature (kind of by definition, since empirical tests would not reveal them). I believe that God has constructed His Universe in such a way as to reveal Himself
Where better to find God’s revelation than in man, the image of God in creation? Man knows that murder is wrong – and that is supernatural. Cain knew.
MattF: I believe that God has constructed His Universe in such a way as to reveal Himself …not so that people who examined it could not help but get the wrong idea.
The point being that the Bible is an unreliable source? Check the image of God instead of the dust of the earth why don’t you?
MattF: And if you’re honestly not concerned about whether or not your beliefs are consistent with science, I guess there’s nothing much more to say.
Science matters, but it’s not God. So there really may be nothing more you can tell me.
Gurgus: Then he brazenly goes on to accuse atheists of trying to razor out the idea that murder is wrong.
Ever get out much? Go talk to some atheists. I’ve spoken to several and they freely admitted to the razoring. Perhaps you will prove to them, all of us, that murder is naturally wrong. Your post didn’t even address the issue – you only coughed up a long, useless complaint. Next time take it to the toilet.
Gurgus post 165,
“Were did these laws in societies that had never heard of the Hebrew God come from exactly?”
Inspiration from other Deities[smile]? Many of the old Pagan Deities were very much like humans, with all of the same personality flaws, desires, etc.etc. SO……………..while someone in your position might be inclined to think that mortals endowed their varied concepts of DEITY with their own attributes, morals, etc.etc. someone else with a belief in Deities might be inclined to believe that it was the other way around. As for myself, I believe that both may have happened.
Happy Hanukkah to any Jews that might be secretly reading[smile].
b baggins: So science can say the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, but Genesis can’t say creation occured in six days? Where’s the rub? In the change? I don’t see that substantiated.
The facts we can test give us a consistent age of nearly 14 billion years. They not only give a consistent age, but a consistent history. The Solar System formed when the Universe was already quite ancient, for example. And there are a lot of these independent tests; we can get into them if you like, but there’s a lot of information here, so I’d need you to be more pointed in your questions.
Anyway, according to the tests that we can perform, creation did not take six 24-hour days. And remember, while tests cannot tell us with absolute certainty what is right, they can tell us absolutely what is wrong. The idea that all life was created within six calendrical days of the origin of the Universe, for example, is wrong, if we expect that the tests we perform on the Universe aren’t lying to us.
A person can invoke supernatural explanations to insist that his preferred mental picture of the Universe’s creation is correct even so. But that leaves us in no better position to accept his picture over, say, someone who insists that everything was created two days ago with all of our memories and all natural indications of greater age intact.
It also leaves us in a rather icky theological position to insist that the Universe is different from the way that all tests reveal it to be; and, more to the point, to insist by implication that tests actually on the right track about its origins come out wrong. Let’s imagine a hypothetical scientist performing a test to ask the question, “Was the Universe created in six calendrical days?” The Universe’s answer is unequivocally “No”. This puts God in the position of creating a Universe that lies, which is rather peculiar if one believes that the Universe reflects God’s attributes.
b baggins: What do you mean? You expect to understand exactly how God created the universe from the little bubble you live in – and if you can’t, somehow that’s trickery on God’s part?
No. I expect that tests performed to determine how the Universe was created to yield results that are actually consistent with the way the Universe was created.
While we have a large amount of confidence in the age of the Universe and the Solar System, for example, one would be pedantically correct in pointing out that we can never be 100% certain that they indicate what we think they indicate. On the other hand, there are some things we can be 100% certain that they do not indicate.
If there are things that tests determine did not happen that actually did, I would think that that would be trickery on God’s part.
b baggins: Tell that to the Judge.
How is this functionally different from saying, “You can’t insist that I be reasonable”?
b baggins: Are you saying God is some sort of Universal “clock”?
Not necessarily God. But if the Universe speeds up or slows down, one needs to ask, with respect to what? If every clock in the Universe is sped up, how can you tell? If every clock in the Universe is slowed down, how can you tell? What are you comparing the “rate” of the Universe to?
That thing you are comparing the “rate” of the Universe to determine when it speeds up (and by how much) and when it slows down (and by how much) would be the Universal “clock” I mean to refer to. It doesn’t have to be God.
b baggins: And relativity rejects that sort of thing…what can I say.
It merely rejects the notion that a Universal “clock” exists. It has nothing to say about God one way or the other.
b baggins: So if Jesus is flying through space at the speed of light, life on earth could progress thousands of years – while he’ll have only been zooming for moments or less?
If Jesus is subject to the laws of the Universe, then yes. I don’t believe that He is. (It’s also the case that at the speed of light, for things under the laws of the Universe, no time passes at all.)
b baggins: Science can only make an assumption on this point, I thought.
Not really. The point of science is that it can test claims about its nature. As I’ve mentioned, it can’t determine with certainty which claims are correct, but it can determine with certainty which statements are not. So it’s not the case that it “can only make an assumption” (emphasis mine).
b baggins: Where better to find God’s revelation than in man, the image of God in creation?
Since I don’t know how much God has chosen to reveal or where all of His revelation lies, I don’t know. If anything, I would advise against restricting our vision too much.
b baggins: Man knows that murder is wrong – and that is supernatural. Cain knew.
I’m not 100% sure that the knowledge that murder is wrong is supernatural. There are systems of behavior in other organisms one might, if one were generous, call “ethical behavior”, and I’m not sure how much of what we would call “good” is that; how much of it is God revealing Himself in the Universe through things like this; how much is the image of God in man; or other possibilities. Maybe it’s got some natural elements and some supernatural elements. I just don’t know for certain.
b baggins: MattF: I believe that God has constructed His Universe in such a way as to reveal Himself …not so that people who examined it could not help but get the wrong idea.
The point being that the Bible is an unreliable source?
You’re begging the question. The Bible is interpreted by fallible humans, and has been interpreted incorrectly many, many times in the past. The question we ought to be asking is whether or not we are interpreting the Bible correctly. If the Bible seems to say something (e.g., “the Earth is fixed”, which one might take to mean that the Earth is immobile), but that interpretation is contradicted by the evidence, it seems to me that we must conclude that the interpretation we are using is wrong and that we ought to consider others.
This example also ought to show us that the way we ought to understand the Bible is not necessarily indicated by the most straightforward interpretation. Getting at truth is often a challenge.
b baggins: Check the image of God instead of the dust of the earth why don’t you?
Why not open our inquiries to more than just one source of answers (and one that can rather easily be confused, deluded, contradictory, and contrary at that)?
b baggins: Science matters, but it’s not God.
Of course not. But I think it can be a tool to let us find out when we’re getting stuff wrong — and even more thrilling, might just offer a little insight into the Creator Whose handiwork science studies.
b baggins: So there really may be nothing more you can tell me.
That’s more up to you than up to me in any case.
Baggins
I talk to atheists all the time. No atheist has ever told either of us that they wanted to eliminate the idea that murder is wrong. I’ve conversed with you before and it’s really obvious you simply don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand most of what an atheist or other freethinker like say Matt here says to you. Either you misunderstood what was said to you or you fabricated the whole claim from scratch. Knowing you the latter is probably true. Either way what you said isn’t.
Far from making a useless complaint I made an unassailable case that human morals, ethics and values could not possibly have come from the God of the Bible. If you had any evidence at all to present to the contrary we would have seen that rather than another childish insult. Most Christians aren’t so foolish as to still try to defend a literal interpretation of the Bible like you are. They’ve accepted the Big Bang explanation for the universe and the Darwinian evolution by natural selection explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. They’ve retreated to a position of letting things like morals and values be attributed to God. What I’ve done is eliminate that hiding place for God as well. So contrary to your claim I have indeed addressed the issue, made my point and my point stands until or unless it can be refuted. You’re welcome to try.
Apparently you’re the one who needs to get out more. Nothing is going down the proverbial toilet faster than creationism. One thing you creationists never consider is this. Half the world knows nothing of the Bible or the Christian God. Among these people are millions of scientists studying all branches of science. If young earth creationism had any validity don’t you think at least a few of these scientists would have come up with evidence that the universe was only a few thousand years old over the last century or so? How come no scientists who have never heard of the Bible think the earth is only a few thousand years old and life was “intelligently designed” (from water and mud) rather than the product of evolution? What’s so funny is that not only can’t you answer the question you and the rest of the creationists have such a narrowed worldview you’ve never even considered this problem before. And you talk about other people being in a bubble.
Gurgus, have you ever heard of the old saying…”You can get more bees with honey than with vinegar.”?
I’d be surprised if you had not. The point I’m trying to make here is that if you truly think that you are more knowledgeable than B.Baggins on this issue then would it not be more honorable to try and find some way to encourage him to learn more? Eeeeeeeeeeease into things with “baby steps” if you have to, if you think it way work. As he continues to come back and debate on this matter he obviously has a curiosity about the sciences. I would just like to caution you to consider the possibility that your criticisms might have the opposite effect and drive people like B.Baggins away, and perhaps even someway confirm in his mind whatever negative beliefs he already has about Atheist.
Just a thought.
John,
What makes you think I want to encourage a creationist to learn something? And what in the world makes you think some dyed in the wool faith head has any interest in science? Trust me, he doesn’t or he would have paid attention in school and would not be such a hopeless scientific ignoramus now. He’s only asking questions in the hope that some of them cannot be answered satisfactorily, at least in his opinion, and then he can type some brain dead remark or rude insult. You are mistaking Baggin’s desire to taunt people who question the Bible for human curiosity. A person who has adopted Christian fundamentalist beliefs has already surrendered their innate human curiosity as well as their sense of humor, sense of pride and above all their ability to think for themselves. All these creationists read the exact same religious propaganda and make the exact same stupid arguments. When you argue with one creationist you are arguing with them all. They’re kind of like the Borg on Star Trek. They definitely do not have a mind of their own.
You cannot get through to people like Baggins because they only understand, use and trust one kind of reasoning: deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning however, is what scientific method is based on. This is the method by which numerous factual observations are synthesized into descriptive laws of nature and explanatory theories. This method of reasoning is sometimes criticized because unlike deduction its conclusions aren’t logically certain. We all know this. It’s why science is all about tests (experiments and observations), and making corrections when necessary. Unlike religion, however, the inductive reasoning in science doesn’t deal in certainty. This is where the revulsion comes from that people like Baggins exhibit when confronted with the teachings of science. People like him want certainty all the time, no matter what. Science has a remarkable record of success but it will never deliver the comforting certainty that such people find only in religion.
This person is like a small spoiled child who doesn’t want to go with the rest of the family on a day trip. What you want to do is coddle the little brat and plead with him to make nice and come along and join the family. As a parent I can tell you that doesn’t work. It just makes the child behave badly any time he doesn’t get his way. Instead you just lock the kid out of the house and get in the car and wave goodbye. Once the child realizes no one really cares what he does or how big of a hissy fit he throws he’ll be screaming for the car to turn around and take him along. I’m the older brother who is sick of this show. I say we turn the car around and run over him! That’s why I just give him another verbal body slam and an intellectual punch in the mouth every time he addresses me in a post. Children need to get what they deserve.
Gurgus post 172,
“John,
What makes you think I want to encourage a creationist to learn something?”
Uh, it was one of those..”Let’s help make the world a better place” moments that I’m prone to lapsing into from time to time after eating a big meal[smile]. So what is this debate for you, some kind of a contest or something? Remember that when you say things like “A person who has adopted Christian fundamentalist beliefs has surrendered their innate human curiosity as well as their sense of humor, sense of pride and above all their ability to think from themselves.” you are talking about people like MattF, who unless I am mistaken was very much like this himself once upon a time. Although you may be correct about his motivation to join in this debate, I am willing to give B.Baggins the benefit of the doubt just in case. After all, it’s not as if you or I REALLY know B.Baggins that well as a person. It’s not as if he’s a staff member of the Institute for Creation Research. People can surprise you. Be patient and see. Time will tell all.
I was not suggesting that we all “coddle the little brat”, as you put it, I was simply suggesting that harsh criticisms and insults might have a counter-productive effect[Under my assumption that you actually wanted someone like B. Baggins to learn anything.], which helps nobody.
I think you could have chosen a better analogy at the end of your post.
Although I have no patience with little bratty kids personally, this situation is not the same, and considering your minority position upon this website, and the nature of this website, if you become too aggressive then you may be banned, and where would the fun in that be for you?
Do you remember when I told character Mike not to be the kind of a Christian that his opposition[which was you at that time]wanted him to be?
Don’t be the kind of an Atheist that your opposition wants you to be. People will judge you by your actions and words long after you are gone.
MattF: The facts we can test give us a consistent age of nearly 14 billion years. They not only give a consistent age, but a consistent history. The Solar System formed when the Universe was already quite ancient, for example. And there are a lot of these independent tests; we can get into them if you like, but there’s a lot of information here, so I’d need you to be more pointed in your questions.
The assumption science takes on is that the way things occur now is how they’ve always occured. Genesis indicates that God was working in a special way during creation – so, the scientific assumption involved in aging the universe is called into question immediately.
MattF: Anyway, according to the tests that we can perform, creation did not take six 24-hour days. And remember, while tests cannot tell us with absolute certainty what is right, they can tell us absolutely what is wrong. The idea that all life was created within six calendrical days of the origin of the Universe, for example, is wrong, if we expect that the tests we perform on the Universe aren’t lying to us.
These tests cannot tell you absolutely what is right or wrong. Assumptions of a default position (with no special assurance) are required. Yes, you could say the tests you preform on the Universe lie to you…if you think you are the center of the universe. An honest scientific inquiry in this matter would admit its inability to confirm the truth or cut out viable possibilities – which gives plenty of room for creationists to remain consistent with science – in so far as science seeks truth.
MattF: A person can invoke supernatural explanations to insist that his preferred mental picture of the Universe’s creation is correct even so. But that leaves us in no better position to accept his picture over, say, someone who insists that everything was created two days ago with all of our memories and all natural indications of greater age intact.
Exactly, a person can read Genesis as it is written. You don’t have to accept the Bible – and by all accounts it doesn’t matter what the Bible says to you – your answers are found through your own works (or other scientists’).
MattF: It also leaves us in a rather icky theological position to insist that the Universe is different from the way that all tests reveal it to be; and, more to the point, to insist by implication that tests actually on the right track about its origins come out wrong.
These tests are inconclusive – and couldn’t possibly indicate that the Universe is lying.
MattF: Let’s imagine a hypothetical scientist performing a test to ask the question, “Was the Universe created in six calendrical days?” The Universe’s answer is unequivocally “No”. This puts God in the position of creating a Universe that lies, which is rather peculiar if one believes that the Universe reflects God’s attributes.
Your hypothetical is unrealistic. There is no test that receives such a clear and conclusive answer, to suggest otherwise is your own lie, not the Universe’s or God’s.
MattF: No. I expect that tests performed to determine how the Universe was created to yield results that are actually consistent with the way the Universe was created.
And if the tests cannot reveal anything conclusive?
MattF: While we have a large amount of confidence in the age of the Universe and the Solar System, for example, one would be pedantically correct in pointing out that we can never be 100% certain that they indicate what we think they indicate. On the other hand, there are some things we can be 100% certain that they do not indicate.
Good, I’ll be pedantically correct if allows me to believe in God, and exactly, you can’t be certain. The truth doesn’t have to be indicated by scientific tests – so it doesn’t matter if science indicates that God didn’t create. The truth is what matters. We can imagine/investigate/discover the possibilities and we can choose to believe something possible. Your notion of creationism may be impossible (some strawman?), but creation as indicated in the Bible is still possible. You keep saying it isn’t, but beyond that I’ve seen nothing.
b baggins: Tell that to the Judge.
MattF: How is this functionally different from saying, “You can’t insist that I be reasonable”?
How is it functionally the same? I see no definitive relation between my statement and the one you equated it to… I was in no way repelling your insistence that I be reasonable by telling you to tell God about how He lied to you or tricked you – which you based upon the possibility (that I suggested) that you could be unable to unravel the mystery of creation (a crime!). I believe the possibility I brought up is a fine one and perfectly reasonable too. It may very well be that you are unable to unravel the mystery – but you call this deceptive (of the Universe or God). I think that is a stupid choice, so I said, essentially – take your complaint to God…this remains a fine possiblity.
MattF: That thing you are comparing the “rate” of the Universe to determine when it speeds up (and by how much) and when it slows down (and by how much) would be the Universal “clock” I mean to refer to. It doesn’t have to be God.
But it could be God?
MattF: It merely rejects the notion that a Universal “clock” exists. It has nothing to say about God one way or the other.
If God could serve as the Universal “clock”, then would it be rejecting God?
MattF: Not really. The point of science is that it can test claims about its nature. As I’ve mentioned, it can’t determine with certainty which claims are correct, but it can determine with certainty which statements are not. So it’s not the case that it “can only make an assumption” (emphasis mine).
I do not believe it has ruled out with certainty that God worked in creating the universe, as Genesis indicates.
MattF: Since I don’t know how much God has chosen to reveal or where all of His revelation lies, I don’t know. If anything, I would advise against restricting our vision too much.
I would advise against the imprudent use of your vision – like spending most of your time looking in the most unlikely places for, likely, the smallest tidbits of God’s revelation.
MattF: I’m not 100% sure that the knowledge that murder is wrong is supernatural.
I guess it depends upon who you think God is.
MattF: You’re begging the question. The Bible is interpreted by fallible humans, and has been interpreted incorrectly many, many times in the past. The question we ought to be asking is whether or not we are interpreting the Bible correctly. If the Bible seems to say something (e.g., “the Earth is fixed”, which one might take to mean that the Earth is immobile), but that interpretation is contradicted by the evidence, it seems to me that we must conclude that the interpretation we are using is wrong and that we ought to consider others.
Evidence comes with assumptions and interpretation too. It cannot be that the Bible’s meaning must always shift with the “evidence”. It may be that the “evidence” needs to shift with the Bible. The question you ought to ask is whether or not you are interpreting the “evidence” correctly too. Or are you saying the Bible itself is useless? Changing however much with whatever “evidence” can be brought in…
MattF: Getting at truth is often a challenge.
Most often because people lie.
MattF: Why not open our inquiries to more than just one source of answers (and one that can rather easily be confused, deluded, contradictory, and contrary at that)?
So maybe we should all look into rocks and stars and see what they tell us about God? What have you (the champion of this method) really found out about God by looking at these sorts of things?
MattF: Of course not. But I think it can be a tool to let us find out when we’re getting stuff wrong — and even more thrilling, might just offer a little insight into the Creator Whose handiwork science studies.
Mainly, are we getting our notion of God wrong? Let’s re-invent the wheel too.
b baggins: …nothing more you can tell me.
MattF: That’s more up to you than up to me in any case.
Noted.
>It may be that the “evidence” needs to shift with the Bible.
Hahahaha…sure. When has THAT ever happened? It’s always the believers who have to reinterpret their book of magic and fairies to fit the latest scientific discoveries and theories. Creationists always want to have their own special “evidence” and “facts” that have nothing to do with reality or the truth.
Here’s another priceless piece of creationist silliness: “Genesis indicates that God was working in a special way during creation – so, the scientific assumption involved in aging the universe is called into question immediately.”
Called into question by who? Called into question by a book that claims the earth is flat, never moves and had vegetation on it BEFORE the sun and moon even existed! I have news for you creationists: The Bible has been debunked. It isn’t the Word of God it’s the words of men who had IQs that would be measured at about 60 by today’s standards. Good luck using that against modern science. Thanks for the laughs.
John,
See what I mean? It’s one thing not to agree with rebuttals and refutations of your claims, but quite another to go on repeating the arguments as if no objections had been raised at all. This is what this creationist is doing and something they all do. In post #170 I pointed out that there are millions of scientists in the world who have never heard of the Bible and know nothing about the Christian God or creationism. I made the case that if there were any validity to young earth creationism it would have been substantiated by scientists independently of the Bible by now. Instead there are no scientists anywhere in the world who think the universe is only a few thousand years old or that life is “intelligently designed” rather than the product of evolution. These archaic and absolutely false beliefs only come from the Bible. They cannot of course, be supported by science. In spite of these facts the resident creationist thinks that creationists can still be consistent with science. He expects scientists who have never heard of the Bible to try to make evidence and facts fit the Bible. How insane is that may I ask? Why try to reason with someone that disconnected from reality? Let him wallow in his religious delusions.
Gurgus: I talk to atheists all the time. No atheist has ever told either of us that they wanted to eliminate the idea that murder is wrong.
I too talk to atheists often. Many have said that you cannot say “murder is wrong”.
Gurgus: Far from making a useless complaint I made an unassailable case that human morals, ethics and values could not possibly have come from the God of the Bible.
You said human and primate morality is the same (it’s instinctive) and that’s that. But that’s retarded – what does this mean? Can a primate ever fail to be moral in your eyes? Or a human? You’ve said that you thought you were innocent – free from sin – and morally outstanding. Do your moral instincts leave you with no choice? How does this work? Primates kill each other and humans – is this them being moral or have they merely strayed from their complex instincts?
Gurgus: If you had any evidence at all to present to the contrary we would have seen that rather than another childish insult.
Let’s figure out how your proposed system really works, then I’ll see if I have plenty to say or not.
Gurgus: Most Christians aren’t so foolish as to still try to defend a literal interpretation of the Bible like you are.
Well, that’s too bad. The ways of the godly seem foolish to worldly folks, I’ve heard.
Gurgus: They’ve accepted the Big Bang explanation for the universe and the Darwinian evolution by natural selection explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
Wow. I’m impressed.
Gurgus: They’ve retreated to a position of letting things like morals and values be attributed to God. What I’ve done is eliminate that hiding place for God as well.
Well then, hopefully some of these other Christian’s will chime in since you have assailed their last position.
Gurgus: So contrary to your claim I have indeed addressed the issue, made my point and my point stands until or unless it can be refuted. You’re welcome to try.
Explain it further. I’m not completely sure I understand how you think this works out.
Gurgus: Apparently you’re the one who needs to get out more.
How do you figure?
Gurgus: Nothing is going down the proverbial toilet faster than creationism.
For real? No way man.
Gurgus: One thing you creationists never consider is this.
Do tell.
Gurgus: Half the world knows nothing of the Bible or the Christian God.
Really? No, thirty-three percent of the world claims to be Christian.
Gurgus: Among these people are millions of scientists studying all branches of science. If young earth creationism had any validity don’t you think at least a few of these scientists would have come up with evidence that the universe was only a few thousand years old over the last century or so? How come no scientists who have never heard of the Bible think the earth is only a few thousand years old and life was “intelligently designed” (from water and mud) rather than the product of evolution? What’s so funny is that not only can’t you answer the question you and the rest of the creationists have such a narrowed worldview you’ve never even considered this problem before. And you talk about other people being in a bubble.
Surprise – surprise – I don’t know of anyone with testable/repeatable evidence of God. God isn’t based upon this sort of thing – the notion is a matter of the heart. Do you care if this existence means anything? Do you care about other people? Do you realize the world is unfair? I hope that God exists to hold evil responsible and to affirm good. I hope God exists and choose to live as if all of my decisions will be Judged; I seek (God’s Will) to play the best role I can in this existence. Part of my seeking God’s Will involves holding evil responsible – calling it out and putting a stop to it – and mocking the foolish mocker (you).
Gurgus: Once the child realizes no one really cares what he does or how big of a hissy fit he throws he’ll be screaming for the car to turn around and take him along. I’m the older brother who is sick of this show. I say we turn the car around and run over him! That’s why I just give him another verbal body slam and an intellectual punch in the mouth every time he addresses me in a post. Children need to get what they deserve.
Ouch, that body slam and punch in the mouth hurt. Ouch, that car hurt, but at the end of the day I’m still here believing in God. Sorry your strategy failed again, better luck next time. You’re gonna have to do a lot better than that to beat God out of me. Woo-hoo!
b baggins: The assumption science takes on is that the way things occur now is how they’ve always occured.
That’s commonly stated, and is something of an oversimplification. We understand that things can happen at different rates, but if and when they do, parallel kinds of evidence are left behind. As a minor example, if an amount of deposition was left in the past as the result of a landslide rather than gradual, persistent deposition that we observe currently, the data will be consistent with that, and we’ll find other, parallel evidences that indicate that this is what happened.
Now, consider again our scientist performing experiments to ask if the Universe was created in six calendrical days. If there’s a “Yeah, but” that she’s supposed to take into account, but which leaves absolutely no evidence behind — and even leaves contrary evidence behind, so that the answer of the experiments is “No” — how is that not deceptive?
b baggins: Genesis indicates that God was working in a special way during creation – so, the scientific assumption involved in aging the universe is called into question immediately.
You’re confusing cause and effect.
Consider Christ’s miraculous transformation of water into wine. I believe that if the ceremonial jugs could have been tested, they’d have shown signs of having carried wine. If whatever they used to fill those jugs had been tested, they’d have shown signs of having carried water. Experimental results would be consistent with the miracle; they would not indicate that something radically different had occurred. If a scientist had performed tests to ask if the evidence was consistent with a water-to-wine miracle, the evidence would return “Yes” or “Maybe” (but definitely not “No”), even if it was not immediately apparent just how that was done.
In much the same way, if God had created the Universe in six calendrical days, tests we perform would yield results consistent with that. They wouldn’t instead indicate that something radically different occurred instead.
Besides, altering all of the different aging mechanisms we use to determine the Universe’s age to precisely the same degree in order to give consistently misleading results… well, that again seems deceptive.
b baggins: These tests cannot tell you absolutely what is right or wrong. Assumptions of a default position (with no special assurance) are required. Yes, you could say the tests you preform on the Universe lie to you…if you think you are the center of the universe. An honest scientific inquiry in this matter would admit its inability to confirm the truth or cut out viable possibilities – which gives plenty of room for creationists to remain consistent with science – in so far as science seeks truth.
Precisely the opposite. Scientific tests are run in controlled fashion — the idea being that no matter who is collecting the data, the same data would be collected. By extension, if an experiment reveals that a given explanation for things is incorrect, this result would be obtained by any experimenter.
Consider these experimental results in light of the two reactions you illustrate. Which seems more like “think[ing] that you are the center of the universe”? A: “It doesn’t matter what these results indicate. I know my preferred picture of the events in question is correct regardless.” B: “Huh. I thought I knew what was going on, but these results seem to indicate that I was wrong. Perhaps more experiments are necessary to see if consistent results can be obtained; and even if a consistent picture should arise, we should try to disprove it as soon as we can.”
b baggins: Exactly, a person can read Genesis as it is written. You don’t have to accept the Bible – and by all accounts it doesn’t matter what the Bible says to you – your answers are found through your own works (or other scientists’).
And what if one accepts the Bible, but knows how wrong people have been in trying to interpret it throughout the centuries, and expects that the true meaning of the Bible will be consistent with the way the Universe really is (rather than as we expect it to be)?
b baggins: These tests are inconclusive – and couldn’t possibly indicate that the Universe is lying.
They are inconclusive about what is right. They are not inconclusive about certain things that are wrong.
b baggins: Your hypothetical is unrealistic. There is no test that receives such a clear and conclusive answer, to suggest otherwise is your own lie, not the Universe’s or God’s.
Have scientific tests revealed conclusively that the Earth is in motion, to your mind?
Consider asking the question, “Did a candle burn in a vacuum in an orbit between Jupiter and Saturn 300 years ago?” It’s fairly simple to understand which tests we could perform to find out whether the scenario is possible. It’s also fairly simple to understand when the answer is “No”.
b baggins: And if the tests cannot reveal anything conclusive?
That’s not as important as “What if the tests reveal that my picture of events is wrong?”, which is more the purview of science anyway.
b baggins: The truth doesn’t have to be indicated by scientific tests – so it doesn’t matter if science indicates that God didn’t create.
First of all, I’m not insisting that science indicates the absolute truth. But it does indicate error. I maintain that even if science cannot reveal the truth, the truth will be consistent with the tests.
Second, science is absolutely silent on whether or not God was involved in creation. It can only tell us certain things about how creation occurred. If that method is not one that matches someone’s picture of Genesis, that doesn’t mean that science has therefore indicated that God did not create.
b baggins: Your notion of creationism may be impossible (some strawman?), but creation as indicated in the Bible is still possible.
My notion of creationism may be impossible, but (as far as I know) it’s consistent with the available facts. Creation as you have described it is not. Of course, that may not matter to you; but saying that your picture is consistent with the evidence available to us is incorrect.
b baggins: You keep saying it isn’t, but beyond that I’ve seen nothing.
I’ll happily provide references if that’s what you want, but there’s a lot of it and I need to narrow things down somewhat. What kind of information are you after? Indications of the amount of time from the start of the Universe to the start of the Solar System — would that be a good place to start?
b baggins: Tell that to the Judge.
MattF: How is this functionally different from saying, “You can’t insist that I be reasonable”?
How is it functionally the same?
Both attempt to silence the opposition by implying that it has nothing relevant to say, and imply a refusal to participate in the usefulness of reason and empirical inquiry in determining what we can about these matters. They may mean very different things, but they seem to serve the same functional ends.
b baggins: which you based upon the possibility (that I suggested) that you could be unable to unravel the mystery of creation (a crime!).
Let me be plain. I do not expect to ever come to a complete understanding of the mystery of creation. I do, however, expect that we can find out whether or not certain things happened by examining the evidence left behind. There’s an enormous gap between the two.
b baggins: I believe the possibility I brought up is a fine one and perfectly reasonable too.
Naturally. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have suggested it.
But it’s not consistent with the evidence left behind, and that’s the only issue I mean to point out. If it is impossible to determine some special, supernatural action because the evidence that is left behind will always indicate that this did not happen, one could still accept your scenario by faith, but it would not be consistent with science.
b baggins: MattF: That thing you are comparing the “rate” of the Universe to determine when it speeds up (and by how much) and when it slows down (and by how much) would be the Universal “clock” I mean to refer to. It doesn’t have to be God.
But it could be God?
Is God bound by time? I was under the impression that He created time.
b baggins: If God could serve as the Universal “clock”, then would it be rejecting God?
It would if God actually served as the Universal “clock”, and if the Universe gave results that indicated that a Universal temporal reference cannot exist.
b baggins: I do not believe it has ruled out with certainty that God worked in creating the universe, as Genesis indicates.
Nor do I. But I think it has ruled out the interpretation of those events that you have spelled out.
b baggins: I would advise against the imprudent use of your vision – like spending most of your time looking in the most unlikely places for, likely, the smallest tidbits of God’s revelation.
Why do you say “likely”?
b baggins: MattF: I’m not 100% sure that the knowledge that murder is wrong is supernatural.
I guess it depends upon who you think God is.
No. It depends on what I think “supernatural” is, how much about the knowledge about murder was given to us by means we would call “natural”, and how much was imputed outside of those methods.
From there, how much was given to us about the knowledge of murder through which means is independent of my opinion about it, or of my impressions about God.
MattF: You’re begging the question. The Bible is interpreted by fallible humans, and has been interpreted incorrectly many, many times in the past. The question we ought to be asking is whether or not we are interpreting the Bible correctly. If the Bible seems to say something (e.g., “the Earth is fixed”, which one might take to mean that the Earth is immobile), but that interpretation is contradicted by the evidence, it seems to me that we must conclude that the interpretation we are using is wrong and that we ought to consider others.
b baggins: Evidence comes with assumptions and interpretation too. It cannot be that the Bible’s meaning must always shift with the “evidence”.
Some does. That does not imply that all does.
b baggins: The question you ought to ask is whether or not you are interpreting the “evidence” correctly too. Or are you saying the Bible itself is useless? Changing however much with whatever “evidence” can be brought in…
Experiments can give ambiguous results. But they can also give results that show that certain explanations are unambiguously wrong. (This goes back to my explanation of a murder victim. The methods used to determine cause of death are good at telling us that certain hypotheses about how the death occurred are wrong. Some will yield results that cannot be decisively determined. All tests will be consistent with matters they do not address — e.g., which year the victim first got a driver’s license.)
You’re also assuming that interpretation of the Bible is supposed to be merely the results of empirical inquiry. I don’t think that’s so. It should be consistent with these results, but that’s not the same thing.
Consider the sea change necessary in Biblical interpretation as evidence started to accumulate that the Earth does move. Does that suddenly render the Bible invalid or useless? Does that mean that the way we interpret the passages that say it is fixed should change, or that we ought to continue to interpret these passages literally?
Again, which is consistent with “think[ing] that you are the center of the universe”? A: “My interpretation is correct regardless of the facts.” B: “My interpretation needs to be revised in light of the way God seems to have actually constructed things.”
b baggins: MattF: Getting at truth is often a challenge.
Most often because people lie.
But not exclusively. Sometimes truth is difficult to get at because things are more complicated than we initially assume.
b baggins: So maybe we should all look into rocks and stars and see what they tell us about God? What have you (the champion of this method) really found out about God by looking at these sorts of things?
Conclusions I draw are speculative, naturally, but I’ve been asked this question before on this site and have answered it before. (And I don’t think it’s my stance; I think it’s Scripture’s. That’s why I gave references.)
I see that the Biblical model of death leading to life is repeated in nature. I see suffering leading to increased viability, as we are told is true about the Christian life. I see that even though reference frames are relative, the speed of light is absolute — is this one of the properties of light that parallel God referred to by “God is light” [1 John 1:5]?
I think God really must like beetles.
I see that God is bigger in His method of creation in both time and space than man’s wildest imagination.
Since I also believe that God’s invisible attributes are modeled in creation, and that a finite creation cannot possibly reflect infinite attributes, I expect an evolving Universe. I also expect a certain amount of painful struggle as the Universe strives to reflect what it cannot possibly.
b baggins: Mainly, are we getting our notion of God wrong? Let’s re-invent the wheel too.
I think that’s seriously overstating the actual case, but if I must, I’d rather. It’s better to try to worship God as He has revealed Himself to be than as we might prefer Him to be, even if the quest for the true God leads down dark and confusing alleyways that we don’t expect.
In the back of my head, there’s the belief that even if I don’t understand correctly or fully how, there is a way in which God as He has revealed Himself in nature is consistent with the way He has revealed Himself in Scripture. (As evidenced by the “fixed Earth” example, I also don’t expect the answers to be as simple as denying evidence we find in nature.)
Baggins,
You’ve already admitted that you thought the murder of unbelievers described in the Bible was justified simply because they were unbelievers. So the atheists are right in saying YOU as a Bible believer certainly have no moral basis for claiming murder is wrong. Humanist values however do say that murder is wrong and give the real reason that it is, not some fairytale commandment against it from a magical clump of burning vegetation. When primates kill each other they are indeed straying from their complex instincts. When believers have killed people simply because they were not believers were they going against their complex religious beliefs? According to you in several previous posts they were not. So religion obviously makes it easy for people to subdue their natural instincts not to kill. History has shown this to be true time and again and current events have proved this is just as true today as it ever was. One of the many reasons holding religious beliefs is so dangerous. They aren’t natural.
You said: “The ways of the godly seem foolish to worldly folks, I’ve heard.” You heard that from other PEOPLE and you believed it. That’s what you get for listening to people who talk about things they cannot know and who are trying to substantiate their own shaky and ridiculous beliefs by getting other people to adopt them. Don’t tell me you aren’t desperately trying to do the same thing. It hasn’t worked yet has it? It isn’t going to either. Every unbeliever you talk to will be more informed about the issues we are discussing than you are. As I already said and our previous posts clearly demonstrate most of what any freethinker says to you in a debate is incomprehensible to you. I’m not going to waste time explaining things to someone who, if they really wanted to learn something, would educate them self. Why aren’t you doing that? You aren’t because you would rather believe implausible fables that make you feel all warm and fuzzy than cold hard facts that you freely admit are very disturbing to you.
Gurgus: Half the world knows nothing of the Bible or the Christian God.
Creationist wisdom: Really? No, thirty-three percent of the world claims to be Christian.
Uh that leaves about two-thirds of the world or about 4.5 billion people who aren’t Christians. At least half of those people know nothing of the Christian Bible, creationism or the Christian God. Yet according to your religious dogma all these people are destined for hell for the supposed crime of adopting the wrong religion because they never were introduced to the “right” one, or worse, adopting no religion at all. Excuse me if I scoff at such religious nonsense and fear tactics that are obviously of human origin. You hope God exists to hold evil responsible and to affirm good and then describe how this is to be done with you and others at a future judgment meaning upon death. But your God doesn’t do this. Instead your God judges people based on only one condition: whether or not they were a member of a particular religion. As I’ve already shown being a Christian or member of any religion doesn’t make anyone any more moral or ethical than anyone else and often considerably much less moral or ethical. So your God is not only doing nothing to alleviate unfairness on Earth, the whole Christian scheme of salvation is about as unfair as it could be, not to mention unbelievable.
At least you admit there is no evidence for God and that belief is not a matter of intelligence or education but a matter of “heart.” To answer your question, I really don’t care if there is a God because as far as anyone can tell it doesn’t matter one way or another. Of course I do care about other people. I haven’t subdued my natural instincts to care for other humans and replaced them with artificial delusions about caring about people because a God supposedly commands me to the way you have. Yes I realize that the world is unfair. So what has your God done to rectify this situation? There are no recognizable signs that God has done anything to alleviate the unfairness that exists in the world not to mention all the suffering. Only we humans can do that and so we must and we must not sit around and think things are just the way they are supposed to be and that God is in control. Obviously he isn’t. We are and we need to recognize that.
Part of your religious indoctrination is to be made to believe that people who are “mockers” are evil. I’m no more evil for rejecting what other human beings have written in the past and say today about God/Jesus than you are for rejecting the Koran and the God of Islam. Both Muslim extremists and you Christian extremists hold the exact same views about anyone who rejects your religious dogma: they’re just evil and deserving of the worst punishment imaginable. Death and annihilation is much too merciful an end for unbelievers. There can be no end to the punishment and no punishment too harsh for rejecting the preferred “true” religion. According to your religious leaders people like me, who need evidence before they will believe something, are just plain evil. Once the association between acceptance of un-falsifiable hypotheses and religious dogma is made with “good” and the association between natural curiosity and skepticism with “evil” is made the religious indoctrination is complete. Of course you’re “still here believing in God.” Someone who has swallowed as much man-made religious doctrine as you have would be. Who cares? My strategy is not to get you to change your mind or “beat God out of” you. Because vilification, fear, and desire bring about religious credence for extremists like you, the process by which religious beliefs come about is one of self-deception. You can’t change your mind. My strategy is to show the flaws, fallacies and untruths in your posts and to that end my strategy has been and will always be extremely successful. Frustrating isn’t it?
[Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.....]
Oh well, I tried.
b baggins: So maybe we should all look into rocks and stars and see what they tell us about God? What have you (the champion of this method) really found out about God by looking at these sorts of things?
Sometimes, when I get started, it’s hard to stop.
Consider how much there was intertwined with the history of the Universe to bring it to this point. He oversaw the star that fused the iron in my blood, in His, and in the spikes that fastened Him to a tree. He knew how the incomprehensibly vast nebula that gave rise to the Sun and the Earth had to be formed, down to the last atom, to give rise to you and me so that we would be in the right place at the right time [Acts 17]. He knew which circumstances had to be present at every evolutionary step for billions of years to bring about the creation He desired.
We can see, in the scope of the Universe, that any planner had to be far bigger than we. We have no time to waste in thinking that spending our existence to fulfill ourselves matters. You and I barely influence the orbit of Jupiter, never mind the shape of the Virgo cluster or the energy output of quasars.
And yet, since He is omnipotent, any finite creative act — even making a Universe — represents the most microscopic aspect of His power. Combine this with the idea that Scripture tells us that God is love. Love is what God is. Sure, the Universe is big, but compared to God, it’s small. Compared to God’s love, it’s small. If you’re ever tempted to doubt whether God has enough love for you, remember how tiny the Universe is.
We can learn that some things are true, and that some things are not. There are some for which we’ll never know. And that’s provable, no matter what our starting assumptions are. It is also possible to know that some things are true even though they’re powerfully counterintuitive.
I wonder if learning to know God parallels learning to know the Universe at any point — e.g., it would seem that there is an infinite amount to learn, no matter where you start — and every answer only reveals more questions and that you’re only just started in trying to figure things out.
Don’t just take some guy’s word for the way things really are. Don’t even trust your first guess or your own favorite ideas. Ask, and try to be as open as possible as you can to the answers provided, even when all that comes out is the obvious need to ask better questions.
MattF: We understand that things can happen at different rates, but if and when they do, parallel kinds of evidence are left behind
It’d be more like a uniform change, than one that would leave behind special evidence.
MattF: If there’s a “Yeah, but” that she’s supposed to take into account, but which leaves absolutely no evidence behind — and even leaves contrary evidence behind, so that the answer of the experiments is “No” — how is that not deceptive?
There’s no evidence that counters this. This only seems deceptive to the experimenter who believes they can get at the truth with their experiment – when in truth they cannot reach it.
MattF: You’re confusing cause and effect.
Care to explain? I’m confusing black and white too, it seems, when I speak with you.
MattF: Besides, altering all of the different aging mechanisms we use to determine the Universe’s age to precisely the same degree in order to give consistently misleading results… well, that again seems deceptive.
It’s not deceptive, it’s just more complicated than the experimenter thought.
MattF: Precisely the opposite. Scientific tests are run in controlled fashion — the idea being that no matter who is collecting the data, the same data would be collected.
You don’t seem to understand what I’m trying to say.
MattF: By extension, if an experiment reveals that a given explanation for things is incorrect, this result would be obtained by any experimenter.
The problem is that any experimenter is living outside of the ‘creation event’.
MattF: A: It doesn’t matter what these results indicate. I know my preferred picture of the events in question is correct regardless.
I know how to explain those results in light of what the Bible says. Not to say I’m not interested in the processes that led to us.
MattF: And what if one accepts the Bible, but knows how wrong people have been in trying to interpret it throughout the centuries, and expects that the true meaning of the Bible will be consistent with the way the Universe really is (rather than as we expect it to be)?
As a scientist you focus on correcting the ‘mechanistic’ elements of the Bible. And you seem to believe that looking into the mechanisms of the Universe will enable you to have a special relationship with God. I don’t get it. What impact will these efforts produce in how people treat each other and themselves?
MattF: Have scientific tests revealed conclusively that the Earth is in motion, to your mind?
No, of course not – and why would that matter in the scheme of things?
MattF: That’s not as important as “What if the tests reveal that my picture of events is wrong?”, which is more the purview of science anyway.
The tests do not reveal that the Biblical picture of events is wrong.
MattF: …the truth will be consistent with the tests.
The truth revealed in the Bible is consistent with the tests.
MattF: Of course, that may not matter to you; but saying that your picture is consistent with the evidence available to us is incorrect.
You have provided no reason to believe that the Biblical time-frame is untenable.
MattF: I’ll happily provide references if that’s what you want
If you want to rule out the possibility of Genesis make your attempt of your own will.
MattF: Both attempt to silence the opposition by implying that it has nothing relevant to say, and imply a refusal to participate in the usefulness of reason and empirical inquiry in determining what we can about these matters. They may mean very different things, but they seem to serve the same functional ends.
What are you talking about?
The compared statements are “Tell that to the Judge” and “You can’t insist that I be reasonable”
I told you to complain to God if you want to call His Universe deceptive. There may be things that are more complicated than they seem – and things that we cannot test from time past – all of which may be called “deceptive” by you but aren’t in the least. It is the fact that you are limited that prevents you from attaining all of these things you want but cannot have. E.g. you want absolute truth and if you can’t have it, then you say God is hiding it from you.
That would really be funny if I tried to silence you by saying “you can’t insist that I be reasonable” – and by doing so implied that you had nothing relevant to say (to me who insists on being unreasonable).
MattF: Let me be plain. I do not expect to ever come to a complete understanding of the mystery of creation. I do, however, expect that we can find out whether or not certain things happened by examining the evidence left behind. There’s an enormous gap between the two.
Wow, that was humble of you. I expect one can explain a few things about the universe by examining the universe too.
MattF: But it’s not consistent with the evidence left behind, and that’s the only issue I mean to point out.
Evidence doesn’t speak on this matter – but if it does present it already. You said something about relativity but trailed off.
MattF: If it is impossible to determine some special, supernatural action because the evidence that is left behind will always indicate that this did not happen, one could still accept your scenario by faith, but it would not be consistent with science.
The evidence doesn’t indicate “that this did not happen” – but if it does present it already. If you have evidence repeat the evidence (perhaps one piece of evidence will suffice) – not this empty claim. I still have no reason to think this is inconsistent with science or truth.
MattF: Is God bound by time? I was under the impression that He created time.
Does God have to be bound by time to be capable of keeping time? He created the time we know – that doesn’t mean He cannot serve as the so-called Universal “clock”.
MattF: It would if God actually served as the Universal “clock”, and if the Universe gave results that indicated that a Universal temporal reference cannot exist.
Do you have a problem with God being capable of keeping time and doing so, such that my interpretation of Genesis works out perfectly? Relativity and this Universal “clock” are the only problems you’ve tried to fabricate so far.
MattF: Nor do I. But I think it has ruled out the interpretation of those events that you have spelled out.
Like what exactly? You think science has ruled out that processes involved in creation could have been sped up, allowing us to read Genesis as it is written, where God could be the Universal “clock”?
b baggins: …advise against the imprudent use…
MattF: Why do you say “likely”?
You are looking to the mechanistic elements of the universe for God. Belief in God is a matter of the heart. Quite incredibly, you’re looking in the worst places possible.
This discussion is beyond fruitless – it’s actually killing good fruits. I’ll have to withdraw from this for the time being – and until I realize that it is something I need to be involved with…bye.
Gurgus: You’ve already admitted that you thought the murder of unbelievers described in the Bible was justified simply because they were unbelievers.
Wrong. I never admitted that – I have no reason to say that.
Gurgus: So religion obviously makes it easy for people to subdue their natural instincts not to kill.
What makes it easy for the primates?
Gurgus: One of the many reasons holding religious beliefs is so dangerous. They aren’t natural.
Does that mean they are supernatural?
Gurgus: You heard that from other PEOPLE and you believed it.
No, I heard it from other primates. I’m a creationist monkey.
Gurgus: Uh that leaves about two-thirds of the world or about 4.5 billion people who aren’t Christians. At least half of those people know nothing of the Christian Bible, creationism or the Christian God.
Well which is it? Half of two-thirds isn’t the same as half of one whole – in case you didn’t notice.
Gurgus: Yet according to your religious dogma all these people are destined for hell for the supposed crime of adopting the wrong religion because they never were introduced to the “right” one, or worse, adopting no religion at all.
Wrong. People are judged fairly by God according to my belief.
Gurgus: You hope God exists to hold evil responsible and to affirm good and then describe how this is to be done with you and others at a future judgment meaning upon death.
Yes. The God I hope for will deal with people fairly.
Gurgus: But your God doesn’t do this. Instead your God judges people based on only one condition: whether or not they were a member of a particular religion.
Wrong. That’s not anything like what I would hope for.
Gurgus: As I’ve already shown being a Christian or member of any religion doesn’t make anyone any more moral or ethical than anyone else and often considerably much less moral or ethical.
The fact that I hope God exists and that I hope everyone will be treated fairly – these facts indicate that I care about others more than someone who ultimately doesn’t care if everyone is treated unfairly.
Gurgus: So your God is not only doing nothing to alleviate unfairness on Earth, the whole Christian scheme of salvation is about as unfair as it could be, not to mention unbelievable.
The unfairness on Earth is a great test for people to endure. It seperates the wheat from the chaff – the real from the imposters. I do believe in combating unfairness and I do – just as I hope for a God that will back up my efforts in the end.
Gurgus: To answer your question, I really don’t care if there is a God because as far as anyone can tell it doesn’t matter one way or another.
That’s sad. You don’t hope for a God because you don’t care. Don’t you think a powerful, loving God would ultimately make a difference (if He existed)?
Gurgus: Of course I do care about other people. I haven’t subdued my natural instincts to care for other humans and replaced them with artificial delusions about caring about people because a God supposedly commands me to the way you have.
You only care as much as your instincts tell you to then? I go beyond that because I see how unfair the world is. I follow God’s law because I see how beneficial it is to the world. And I hope for God because I know with Him this world could be set right. God is the only hope for this world.
Gurgus: So what has your God done to rectify this situation?
He has called upon people like me to play a role in correcting the situation. I live well below my means so that I am more free to aid in the recovery.
Gurgus: Only we humans can do that and so we must and we must not sit around and think things are just the way they are supposed to be and that God is in control.
The God I hope for tells me to move according to His Will. E.g. I endure hardship (because it’s cheaper) just so that I am more able to help others.
Gurgus: Part of your religious indoctrination is to be made to believe that people who are “mockers” are evil. I’m no more evil for rejecting what other human beings have written in the past and say today about God/Jesus than you are for rejecting the Koran and the God of Islam.
Mockers are people of evil intent. I do not mock people of other religions like you – the only people I mock are mockers like you (evil). There were some Muslims in a discussion forum recently that I defended against the atheists of evil intent who were attacking them.
Gurgus: According to your religious leaders people like me, who need evidence before they will believe something, are just plain evil.
You need special evidence to even hope for a powerful, loving God? You’re so delusional when it comes to this I’m surprised you can even look yourself in the mirror.
Gurgus: My strategy is to show the flaws, fallacies and untruths in your posts and to that end my strategy has been and will always be extremely successful. Frustrating isn’t it?
You wouldn’t dare hope that God exists, because you know your fanny would then be at risk. I find that hilarious. You’ll get what you deserve child – or should I say demon baby?
Creationist lie: Wrong. I never admitted that – I have no reason to say that.
Wow I can’t believe even a compulsive liar like you would try to pass a lie like that off on a blog where everyone can clearly see what you said. What about when you said small children were killed “mercifully” because no one wanted them? Or when you justified killing women because they led the Hebrews to other religions or had sex with them? I guess now that you’ve seen all your arguments destroyed by an atheist you have nothing left but outright lies to resort to. What about bearing false witness? That doesn’t apply to you does it? You have the “liar for Jesus” exemption as per Romans 3:5. Every Christian apologists favorite Bible verse for it gives them permission to lie for the purpose of spreading their religion just like the Apostle Paul admitted he did.
Creationist: What makes it easy for the primates?
Other primates occasionally fight over food or members of the opposite sex but they don’t have nearly the murder rate humans do simply because they don’t have false religious beliefs driving them to hate and murder members of their own species the way humans do. Religion is truly the root of evil.
Creationist: Does that mean they are supernatural?
No, it means religious beliefs are all false. As far as anyone can tell nothing supernatural exists nor has it ever. Let’s call supernaturalism what it is: a childish and baseless belief in magic and fairies.
Creationist: No, I heard it from other primates. I’m a creationist monkey.
Why would you believe other people when they tell you to believe things they cannot prove and don’t even have one tiny shred of evidence for? You have a lot of nerve calling people who are too intelligent to fall for such trickery and nonsense delusional.
Creationist nit picking: Well which is it? Half of two-thirds isn’t the same as half of one whole – in case you didn’t notice.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt to show just how many people have never heard of the Bible or Jesus. Now why haven’t any of these people come up with scientific information that supports a young earth or intelligent design or that refutes evolution independently from the Bible? The reason is that there is no such evidence because the Bible is chock full of scientific inaccuracies proving once and for all that it is NOT the Word of God. There really aren’t too many things more funny or entertaining than watching creationists like you go through all their mental gymnastics to try to explain away all the scientific falsehoods in the Bible. My personal favorite is when creationists try to prove the Bible doesn’t say the earth is flat. They are arguing with about 30 million other Christians who insist the earth is flat because the Bible tells them so.
Mindless religious yammering: Wrong. People are judged fairly by God according to my belief.
Yes according to YOUR belief anyone who has never heard of the Christian God deserves to be punished for all eternity in hell. That is your twisted idea of fairness.
More mindless religious yammering: Yes. The God I hope for will deal with people fairly.
Well the God you hope for and the God described in the Bible and by Christian dogma is definitely not the same God. You want God to act just the way you want him to and so you’ll believe that he does. Every Christian does the same thing because they can’t bear to worship God as he is really described in the Bible.
More mindless religious yammering: Wrong. That’s not anything like what I would hope for.
So what? That’s what the Bible says and what your religious leaders say. It doesn’t matter what you hope for.
More mindless religious yammering: The fact that I hope God exists and that I hope everyone will be treated fairly – these facts indicate that I care about others more than someone who ultimately doesn’t care if everyone is treated unfairly.
Just because someone doesn’t care about God doesn’t mean they don’t care about people. Do you care about God more than you do people? You do, I don’t and so I’m clearly the better person. You’re a pathological liar anyway so it’s pretty hard for someone not to be a better human being than you are. They’d pretty much have to be on death row to match your evil nature.
More mindless religious yammering: The unfairness on Earth is a great test for people to endure. It seperates the wheat from the chaff – the real from the imposters. I do believe in combating unfairness and I do – just as I hope for a God that will back up my efforts in the end.
So far God hasn’t shown himself so enjoy your pipe dream.
More mindless religious yammering: That’s sad. You don’t hope for a God because you don’t care. Don’t you think a powerful, loving God would ultimately make a difference (if He existed)?
Yes I do and since there is no evidence that there is a God who makes a difference I don’t believe any God exists. Duh. How come you can’t see that too?
More mindless religious yammering: You only care as much as your instincts tell you to then? I go beyond that because I see how unfair the world is. I follow God’s law because I see how beneficial it is to the world. And I hope for God because I know with Him this world could be set right. God is the only hope for this world.
No we humans are the only hope for this world. God is a delusion or haven’t you read what Freud and Dawkins wrote on the subject.
More mindless religious yammering: He has called upon people like me to play a role in correcting the situation. I live well below my means so that I am more free to aid in the recovery.
I don’t need to be called by an imaginary sky daddy to do good works. I do them of my own volition and you have to be commanded to do them. Again I’m clearly the better person. Also I’m not a liar. You are.
More mindless religious yammering: The God I hope for tells me to move according to His Will. E.g. I endure hardship (because it’s cheaper) just so that I am more able to help others.
So God speaks to you in an audible voice does he? Or does he just speak through a magic paper oracle to you?
More mindless religious yammering: Mockers are people of evil intent. I do not mock people of other religions like you – the only people I mock are mockers like you (evil). There were some Muslims in a discussion forum recently that I defended against the atheists of evil intent who were attacking them.
Exposing the lies of religion is doing good, not evil. I don’t expect a religious fanatic and liar to accept that or even be able to understand it.
More mindless religious yammering: You need special evidence to even hope for a powerful, loving God? You’re so delusional when it comes to this I’m surprised you can even look yourself in the mirror.
I’m delusional because I need evidence to believe something? You have swallowed all sorts of religious delusions based on nothing but blind faith in the words of other people. You have no room to call anyone else delusional. You are as disconnected from reality as anyone we might find in a lunatic asylum.
More mindless religious yammering: You wouldn’t dare hope that God exists, because you know your fanny would then be at risk. I find that hilarious. You’ll get what you deserve child – or should I say demon baby?
If a God did exist YOU are the one who would be in deep trouble. You accuse God of flooding the world and killing almost all of humanity as well as all the animals. You accuse God of inspiring countless wars and battles in which thousands of innocent people were murdered at his command. I wouldn’t want to be you and have to explain why I said all those things about God to his face. We can prove none of those events really happened beyond any doubt whatsoever. Yet you still lie about them like they did. You better hope and pray there is no God because if there is YOU have some serious explaining to do. Liar. See ya. Wouldn’t want to be ya.
b baggins: bye.
Bye. If you ever feel the need to pick this discussion up again, we’ll need to establish a common ground so that I know how much of relativity you understand. It seems to me that you are making the same mistake Geocentrists make — they point out that a consistent set of physical laws can be worked out by pretending that any chosen reference point is fixed (right), so it’s correct to declare that the Earth is fixed (wrong). You can point out that the Universe can be “sped up” or “slowed down” with respect to an external reference frame, but you can’t then claim that that external reference frame is the “correct” one. Look forward to discussing if and when you decide to do so.
Back on track with the subject at hand, we have Ray Comfort giving out copies of Origin with a preface that looked cobbled together from someone else’s work (I gave a link to that effect here); it seems that the original author (Stan Guffey) is considering legal action. It’ll be interesting to see how this develops.
I also found this, which is strangely reminiscent of my conversations with b lately.
Any Athiest – Please answer me this, if God did not create life, how did life get here? How did we become the apex animal of this planet?
As a Bible beliver, micro-evolution (adaptations of a species to a set of envoronmental stressors) is not only belivable, but makes Noah’s Ark a much more believable scenario and is a biological fact.
Macro-evolution (the creation of a new genis) is not as firmly placed as fact.
Hi Ed:
How life got here, or arose in the first place (known as biogenesis) is not completely understood by science as of yet. There are plenty of competing ideas though.
Humans are not the ‘apex animal’ of the planet. We are just another animal species. You are projecting your anthropocentric ideas onto the discussion.
People who know about these things will tell you that micro and macro evolution are driven by the same evolutionary mechanisms. Given time and genetic variation, gene flow, drift, etc species will eventually evolve into different species, classes, etc.
Your statement that macro-evolution is not a fact is incorrect. Look at the geologic record. New species evolved over time. No question about it. The only thing that is even possibly open for debate is the *mechanism* by which it happened. The vast majority of the scientific community believes that natural selection was the driving force behind evolution. If you have evidence to the contrary you are well on your way to earning a Nobel Prize and scientific infamy.
Gurgus: Wow I can’t believe even a compulsive liar like you would try to pass a lie like that off on a blog where everyone can clearly see what you said.
Link us back to the source if you found that I said that.
Gurgus: What about when you said small children were killed “mercifully” because no one wanted them?
Yes, what’s your point? Why would I think the Israelites could take on an entire nation’s or tribe’s child population? Should they have picked some out and left the others? Would you try to adopt the pets of the nation you had to go to war with and conquer too?
Gurgus: Or when you justified killing women because they led the Hebrews to other religions or had sex with them?
They were bad seed, I thought.
Gurgus: I guess now that you’ve seen all your arguments destroyed by an atheist you have nothing left but outright lies to resort to.
Okay, sure…that’s right buddy.
Gurgus: What about bearing false witness? That doesn’t apply to you does it?
If I lie I’m guilty of lying just like anyone else.
Gurgus: You have the “liar for Jesus” exemption as per Romans 3:5. Every Christian apologists favorite Bible verse for it gives them permission to lie for the purpose of spreading their religion just like the Apostle Paul admitted he did.
Spreading cheap tricks isn’t how I deal. Those will die away and won’t produce lasting results, why would I be interested in those?
Gurgus: Other primates occasionally fight over food or members of the opposite sex but they don’t have nearly the murder rate humans do simply because they don’t have false religious beliefs driving them to hate and murder members of their own species the way humans do. Religion is truly the root of evil.
I thought you said humans manufactored religion – so wouldn’t that make humans the root of evil?
Gurgus: No, it means religious beliefs are all false.
That cannot be. My point was, how can you say that religion is unnatural when it exists in nature?
Gurgus: As far as anyone can tell nothing supernatural exists nor has it ever. Let’s call supernaturalism what it is: a childish and baseless belief in magic and fairies.
I hope something supernatural exists to save this world from evil.
Gurgus: Why would you believe other people when they tell you to believe things they cannot prove and don’t even have one tiny shred of evidence for?
I believe in God because He is mankind’s last hope.
Gurgus: You have a lot of nerve calling people who are too intelligent to fall for such trickery and nonsense delusional.
You’re too smart to need help from God. You can take care of all the naked and hungry yourself, though I’m afraid you’d just let them all die while exploiting them for labor.
Gurgus: I gave you the benefit of the doubt to show just how many people have never heard of the Bible or Jesus.
Thanks.
Gurgus: Now why haven’t any of these people come up with scientific information that supports a young earth or intelligent design or that refutes evolution independently from the Bible?
Do these people believe in God or are they trying to explain the world without invoking supernatural powers?
Gurgus: The reason is that there is no such evidence because the Bible is chock full of scientific inaccuracies proving once and for all that it is NOT the Word of God.
Being discombobulated in relation to science isn’t the worst. The Bible really only has to be true to the real world.
Gurgus: There really aren’t too many things more funny or entertaining than watching creationists like you go through all their mental gymnastics to try to explain away all the scientific falsehoods in the Bible.
I bet you’re happy to see the mind at work, since you love thinking and stuff so much.
Gurgus: My personal favorite is when creationists try to prove the Bible doesn’t say the earth is flat. They are arguing with about 30 million other Christians who insist the earth is flat because the Bible tells them so.
Oh, c’mon. You’re doing some nit-picking yourself.
Gurgus: Yes according to YOUR belief anyone who has never heard of the Christian God deserves to be punished for all eternity in hell. That is your twisted idea of fairness.
No, I said that was not true.
Gurgus: Well the God you hope for and the God described in the Bible and by Christian dogma is definitely not the same God.
Why (or how) aren’t they one and the same?
Gurgus: You want God to act just the way you want him to and so you’ll believe that he does. Every Christian does the same thing because they can’t bear to worship God as he is really described in the Bible.
I don’t have a problem with the Biblical picture of God as far as I know.
Gurgus: So what? That’s what the Bible says and what your religious leaders say. It doesn’t matter what you hope for.
Yes it does matter what I hope for. I found the God that I hope for in the Bible. If religious leaders say otherwise I most likely have a serious problem with them – and I have confronted several already.
Gurgus: Just because someone doesn’t care about God doesn’t mean they don’t care about people.
God is the only hope for people.
Gurgus: Do you care about God more than you do people? You do, I don’t and so I’m clearly the better person.
God is number one and because of that I care about other people more than you.
Gurgus: You’re a pathological liar anyway so it’s pretty hard for someone not to be a better human being than you are. They’d pretty much have to be on death row to match your evil nature.
Why do you think I can’t or I shouldn’t I hope for God? What am I lying about so much?
Gurgus: So far God hasn’t shown himself so enjoy your pipe dream.
I know, that’s why I’m still hoping – and faith.
Gurgus: Yes I do and since there is no evidence that there is a God who makes a difference I don’t believe any God exists. Duh. How come you can’t see that too?
Why don’t you hope for God? Why don’t you hope for a strong and mighty leader who will treat people fairly and compassionately – uphold justice and so on?
Gurgus: No we humans are the only hope for this world. God is a delusion or haven’t you read what Freud and Dawkins wrote on the subject.
Look I believe in working on earth to help others. I work because I believe that is God’s Will. I work as much as I can, and I want to work more and more until I’m being the best I can be for God. Some of my work is communicating to others about religious topics – in person and online (like this). I know I have a long ways to go, but as I gain experience and interact more and more I slowly improve – at least I think I’ve made progress. I hope God exists to do what I know that I cannot do, but that doesn’t stop me from trying to be godly.
Gurgus: I don’t need to be called by an imaginary sky daddy to do good works. I do them of my own volition and you have to be commanded to do them. Again I’m clearly the better person. Also I’m not a liar. You are.
You spend your free time being addicted to pro sports and attacking believers like me online for fun. You’d never find me wasting time like that and being happy about it. I believe I need to be productive for God – so that’s ho