Noodled: Evolution Beats Intelligent Design in Florida

It is unlikely that the science or satire had much of an impact on people that profoundly ignorant. It did not change their minds one bit about wanting their religious beliefs pushed into the classroom. These type of people do not listen to the science side. If they did, they would have never proposed teaching intelligent design in the first place.

The switch went in, and it was perpetrated by the same guys that sold them the ID scam. They had the bait and switch run on them and they had two choices. Take the switch, or drop the issue. When the con artists that sold you on the intelligent design scam come to you and tell you about this wonderful new scam that they are running, and the new scam takes pains to not even mention that ID ever existed, what are your options?

Some of the creationist rubes like the Ohio State School Board bunch did take the switch scam from the ID perps (Meyer ran that bait and switch scam personally), but even the guys that took the switch seem to have eventually dropped it too. It doesn't take a genius to tell anyone that the competency and integrity level of such a group of creationist rubes has to be fairly low. Who would try and implement the switch scam when it is coming from the same guys that you know lied to you about the ID scam?

If Florida drops the issue without taking up the ID replacement scam Texas would be the only place that I know of that is still actively pushing the switch scam. McLeroy is about the last guy that you would want involved in implementing the switch scam. Not only was he an IDiot supporter, but he has made statements about the switch scam and how it is supposed to work in training people to run in the switch. That State Rep in Carolina might still be thinking about pushing the replacement scam, but he has also been tainted by the teach ID creationist scam. He can't deny what he tried to do anymore than the ID perps can.

The ID scam artist perps need a pristine group of creationist rubes to run the replacement scam. Then they need the courts to look the other way and not notice that the same guys that ran the dishonest ID creationist scam are running the new scam. It hasn't happened, yet, and it would not have happened in Florida.

Have you seen this blog?

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2007-12/msg10645.html

[
If this has been discussed before, my apologies in advance
]

Here's a different take on creationism/ID: "The Quest for Right," a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics:

"American Atheists base their reasoning on Quantum Interpretation, hand in hand with Quantum Mathematics. Summoning the dark forces of quantum mysticism, with mathematical incantations, possesses the power to bewilder, and thus con, the average persons seemingly at will, into believing the bizarre and surreal: Z Particles, Neutrinos, Leptons, Quarks, Weak Bosons, etc. Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion. These formula represent the greatest hoax ever pulled upon an unsuspecting public....The objective....is to expedite the return to classical physics, by exposing quantum dirty tricks. That is, unethical behavior or acts,...to undermine and destroy the credibility of Biblical histories. These dirty tricks include: Absolute dating systems, Big Bang Theory, Antimatter, and Oort Cloud. These...have no further station in Science."

http://www.questforright.com/

[
A more sophisticated way to.....

it has the same kind of weird frantic grammar as the timecube website.

All of this further points out the huge need for better science education in our schools. If our high school graduates really understood how science works as well as how Darwin came to the conclusions he did, there would be less controversy and foolishness. Regarding quantum mechanics: it isn't just theory. Quantum mechanics is a currently useful tool in many spheres, especially in electronic and space fields.

As one poster in the link said - if the guy has just proved that quantum mechanics is false, then he has also proved that the computer hosting his website does not exist, and the laser that burns his DVDs also does not exist.

Here’s a different take on creationism/ID: “The Quest for Right,” a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics:

These type of people do not listen to the science side. If they did, they would have never proposed teaching intelligent design in the first place.

— Ron Okimoto

Those questforright people even pulled their material from their website, and they are now only accessible for the select in-group with working passwords to a secret site. Which is just how all honest working scientists publish their material, of course...
With the World Scientists Conspiracy being a secret cult and all that...

I wrote similar emails to the Kansas school board back when they were going down the path to IDC hell. One of the fundy members (Cathy Martin?) wrote me back and warned me that "mocking God is a serious offense"

In spite of her claim I was never charged with any "mocking" crimes by intelligent designers, space aliens or deities.

On a more rational note other Kansas school board members wrote me back and thanked me for my comments. I also suggested they use Judge Jones 139 page ruling to teach the controversy. Several said that was a great idea and asked me to attend their public meetings and make that suggestion.

I encourage everyone to communicate with these school boards, whether you live in their district or not.

One of the fundy members (Cathy Martin?) wrote me back and warned me that “mocking God is a serious offense”

— Mr_Christopher

Good one Frank!

“They’ve made us the laughingstock of the world,” said Margaret Lofton, a school board member who supports intelligent design. She dismissed the e-mail as ridiculous and insulting.

Stanton: Would they have rather had gone through with "teaching" intelligent design, and had their children become both laughingstocks AND educational failures, instead?

You made yourself a laughing stock Ms. Lofton. The Pastafarians just helped the world become aware of it.

To add to Frank's excellent retort, be sure to tell such people: "We are not mocking god, we are mocking YOU."

“They’ve made us the laughingstock of the world,” said Margaret Lofton, a school board member who supports intelligent design. She dismissed the e-mail as ridiculous and insulting.

To add to Frank's excellent retort, be sure to tell such people: "We are not mocking god, we are mocking YOU."

Elsewhere, at Amazon.com, I have observed sarcastically that there is more evidence supporting Klingon Cosmology than there is for Intelligent Design. In the future, perhaps some "Klingons" can send e-mail complaints to school board members sympathetic to Intelligent Design, and insist that Klingon Cosmology be taught alongside it.

Here's why I think there's more evidence in support of Klingon Cosmology than there is for Intelligent Design:

1) Since you see Klingons often on television, then they must be real (Don't you agree that everything you see on television is real?).

2) An official Klingon Language Institute exists here in North America.

3) Shakespeare's plays and the Bible have been translated into Klingon.

4) People have held wedding ceremonies in Klingon.

Furthermore, I have proposed a testable Intelligent Design hypothesis that is consistent with contemporary evolutionary theory: KRID (Kwok - Roddenberry Intelligent Design hypothesis). KRID states that sometime approximately 4.2 Billion Years Ago, a Klingon battlecruiser visited the primordial Earth and seeded it with microbes. Therefore, the Intelligent Designer was a Klingon!

I have tried to interest Bill Dembski in writing a definitive book on Klingon Cosmology instead of wasting his time, trying to disseminate the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design, but alas, he's not interested (Maybe someone can ask him why he's turned down a potentially lucrative offer like this one, the next time he comes to your town.).

Hope you all have a Happy New Year!

Cheers,

John

1) Since you see Klingons often on television, then they must be real (Don’t you agree that everything you see on television is real?).

3) Shakespeare’s plays and the Bible have been translated into Klingon.

raven: And BTW, if you send $500 to your local prosperity ministry, you will be a millionaire someday.

RJM:

raven: And BTW, if you send $500 to your local prosperity ministry, you will be a millionaire someday.

...because with enough support, these ministries will fund the election of politicians who will also drive the dollar into the ground to the point where being a millionaire can't even guarantee you a coffee at Starbucks.

John, you're wasting your time with Bill Dembski regarding your Klingon theory. Instead pose it to David Springer. That is exactly the sort of theory he advocates at UD, with a straight face I might add.

Chris

Unfortunately - That was only 1 county in Florida that "Backed off". Polk County.
Pinellas County is still "wishy washy" - but the counties are not the big issue. The BoE is scheduled to vote, in February, on whether or not they will approve the new science standards for the state. We have 3 - maybe 4- board members that want ID to be addressed in the standards before they will approve them.
As it is right now - the science standards are failing and need this serious upgrade ASAP! I am fairly confident (but not positive) that ID will not be introduced into the standards. I (and probably many others) have made it clear to the BoE that I have "Standing" and won't hesitate to take them to court.
However, I'm afraid that they will alter the standards as they are written so that they don't "offend" anyone.(Take the word evolution out)
Hopefully they will get it done before my child makes it to High School in 2 years.
(Sorry about all the parenthesis - I can't help myself)

Considering the difficulty that IDCists (and fundamentalists in general) have in telling the difference between their beliefs and god’s beliefs, it’s probable that they can’t really tell the difference between mockery of themselves and mockery of god

Flint: ...their gods speak to them directly, straight into their ears...

Sorry to break the bad news Stanton but Seattle’s Best is Starbucks

"They’ve made us the laughingstock of the world,” said Margaret Lofton, a school board member who supports intelligent design.

Paul Burnett, I came away from that book with the distinct feeling that at some point in my life there actually was a Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Mine, that is!

Actually, several such occasions. One day, I'm looking good and feeling sharp; next day I'm damage/collateral because a basic assumption I'd made failed to find itself supported by reality and thus much damage control is enforced. Changes are made, even the painful ones. Life goes on. And after, I am still me, but not who I was.

This seems to parallel the TOE in that things that work continue to work, and them that don't, don't.

Such parallels have always struck me as pregnant, instructive, and worthy of further examination.

Question: Could my point of view be the result of certain neural connections made in the past, without my personal, willful intent (or any other non-neural (or intentional) influence)? Or must my point of view come from a source that is beyond, even hidden, from human apprehension?

Not having all the data at hand, and judging merely from experience and observation, I would declare the former is closest to a satisfactory answer. After all, what you do when watching a magician is look for the trick. When watching reality, you look for explanations. Personally, the trick is fun but the explanation is useful. No contest.

I declare that the process of learning is quite similar to what we observe in the study of biological evolution, and similarly illuminates the manifold opportunities available when complex systems interact.

This is part of the reason that I share a sense of unity with the world at large, the people who inhabit it and the wider universe beyond. I've learned that I am not special. I am part of the rest. I am not considered separately from reality; I am an integral part of and a natural product of it. My presence will have some influence. I'll return whence I came. Not spiritually but . . . comfortably. Really! In fact, you could trace my atoms as they go if you wanted to.

And now, to supper!

Happy New Year

E Pluribus Unum

Sorry to break the bad news Stanton but Seattle’s Best is Starbucks

really?

that is bad news.

things must have changed drastically in that town in the last 15 years if that is indeed the case.

Maybe the competing camps of creationism and ID will do each other in? In a related story did you see where the different Christian priest had an out and out BRAWL in the Church of the Basillica (Jesus's supposed birthplace)? Cleaning up after Christmas religious festivites, one of them stepped across a line meant to divide the various CHRISTIAN sects. After that, it was all elbows and assholes (brooms and stones) as a full scale brawl involving over 50 priests. It just seems like the perfect religious parable to pass along about the peace and love inspired by religion.
Enjoy.

Sorry to break the bad news Stanton but Seattle’s Best is Starbucks.

— bjm

Maybe the competing camps of creationism and ID will do each other in?

— Tim Fuller

(Sorry about all the parenthesis - I can’t help myself)

Torbjörn Larsson, OM:

(Sorry about all the parenthesis - I can’t help myself)

(Is that what you would call in loco parenthesis - text placed in parentheses gone wild?)

Hi all,

I still think it's a good idea to ask one of the Disco Institute fellows, especially Bill Dembski, why Intelligent Design is credible, especially when there is more proof on behalf of Klingon Cosmology than there is for
Intelligent Design (I truly don't believe everything I see on television, but have used my "reasoning" on behalf of Klingon Cosmology merely to demonstrate the inane reasoning abilities demonstrated by Discovery Institute Fascist Bill Dembski, his
Disco colleagues and their Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective of sycophantic fans.).

My best wishes to you all for a happy new year!

Cheers,

John

This is a link to the Fl BoE suggesting some "Re-wording" of the standards from a well known attorney ... http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/evolution.pdf
... exactly what I was afraid of.
I guess all I can do now is hope that the BoE is smart enough to run this "dribble" by the committee that wrote the standards before they decide to change all of the proposed standards based on this letter.

Linda: asked: Have you seen this blog? http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2007-12/msg10645.html "Here's a different take on creationism/ID: "The Quest for Right" ...

To quote a Klingon Commander:
"law' DISmey maH ghaj nejta' vaD jang Daq vam ID 'oH ghobe' 'oH ' 'oH, Sov ghaH"
(We spent many years searching for the answer to this. ID is not it - knowledge is.)

:)

Dear fractalfire,

I'd love to hear a Klingon Commander say just that to Billy Dembski in person, the next time he addresses a public audience. Indeed, that would be a superb opportunity for an entire crew of Klingon warriors to "beam" down from their battlecruiser in orbit.

Cheers,

John

From the discussion section of John Skilling's paper Foundations? in 27th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, AIP Conference Proc. #954 (2007):

... We always process models of the truth. We do not see "the truth", and even if one of our models happens to be true, we would never know it. We may motivate ourselves by aiming to search out the truth, but it is a myth. ...
Science is commonly, but wrongly, perceived as truth seeking. Actually, it is a quest for predictive connections, and those connections are of practical value. In science's war with the irrational, we should fight on the firm ground of practicality, and not on the weak ground of some supposedly-authoritative knowledge of mythical truth.

Hello.... Just a thought, but when the first amoeba sprang up. What did it have for breakfast that day? Everything alive needs to eat. Since you Scientist folks know everything, I figured you knew this also. You folks need to consider more than what the eye sees. Simply set and figure just how you could possibly be. It's not possible in any way we can figure. There is only one way. How could you refuse something so simple? It was laid out by a mind far superior to ours......Jesse in Illinois

that's a hoot(s), alright.

Jesse:

how could the world possibly be round?
i mean you can just look outside and see it's flat, right?

I assume you think life is too complex for you to reason out, so you just went and pithed your own brain and threw your hands in the air. don't even bother to use your imagination, just pick out the lamest explanation you can grab on to, with no support whatsoever, and say it's "obvious".

have you ever considered that the reason it seems "obvious" to you is because you simply are too dim-witted to think of anything better, that actually works to explain anything?

congratulations on giving up on learning. You set a great example for kids everywhere.

Hello...I would think you people would have better things to do than sit around and try to prove there is no God. What's your point? You people think we came from apes. Well, why are there still apes? Ones left didn't make the grade? Black holes? When was the last time you hovered around in outer space? The only black hole is between your ears. I have hope for eternity and I have hope you are there to enjoy it with me. Even Einstein thought there was a God. Who among us is as bright as he was? Science is a great thing, but it needs to be used to enhance creation, not destroy it. Also, Margaret needs to chill. .....Jesse

Hello....In the time of Columbus, you are right. I probably would have thought the world was flat. That's what they would have taught me in school. Your life will obviously end when you die, so we can then launch you into space with your hero Gene R. and both of you will be sucked into a black hole where you belong. Then the rest of us can go on about our stupid little lives.....Jesse

Hello....In the time of Columbus, you are right. I probably would have thought the world was flat. That's what they would have taught me in school. Your life will obviously end when you die, so we can then launch you into space with your hero Gene R. and both of you will be sucked into a black hole where you belong. Then the rest of us can go on about our stupid little lives.....Jesse

Hello...You never answered my question. What did the first omoeba have for breakfast his first day? Which came first? Chicken or the egg? You answer these questions and I will denounce God for you. Will that make you happy? Jesse

Jesse Jesse Hoots said: Hello…. Just a thought, but when the first amoeba sprang up. What did it have for breakfast that day? Everything alive needs to eat. Since you Scientist folks know everything, I figured you knew this also.

You folks need to consider more than what the eye sees. Simply set and figure just how you could possibly be. It’s not possible in any way we can figure. There is only one way. How could you refuse something so simple? It was laid out by a mind far superior to ours……Jesse in Illinois

Jesse being confused: Jesse Hoots said: Hello…I would think you people would have better things to do than sit around and try to prove there is no God. What’s your point?

You people think we came from apes. Well, why are there still apes? Ones left didn’t make the grade?

Black holes? When was the last time you hovered around in outer space? The only black hole is between your ears.

Hello…I would think you people would have better things to do than sit around and try to prove there is no God.

— Jesse Hoots

What’s your point?

You people think we came from apes. Well, why are there still apes? Ones left didn’t make the grade?

Black holes? When was the last time you hovered around in outer space?

The only black hole is between your ears.

I have hope for eternity and I have hope you are there to enjoy it with me.

Even Einstein thought there was a God.

Who among us is as bright as he was?

Science is a great thing, but it needs to be used to enhance creation,

not destroy it.

Also, Margaret needs to chill……Jesse

Hello…You never answered my question. What did the first omoeba have for breakfast his first day? Which came first? Chicken or the egg? You answer these questions and I will denounce God for you. Will that make you happy? Jesse

— Jesse Hoots

I wish it were true that the issue has been settled in Florida, but there are still a number of Creationists on school boards other than Polk County's. I've extracted mentions of them from an article in today's Palm Beach Post in an entry on Hyphoid Logic which also links to the original article.

As for this Jesse Hoots guy... well... isn't he about 12 or 13 years old? These certainly seem like grade-school biology questions delivered with the sort of smugness I would typically expect from a junior high student.

Jesse Hoots: Hello....In the time of Columbus, you are right. I probably would have thought the world was flat. That's what they would have taught me in school.

Palm Beach Post Article:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/12/31/m1a_EVOLUTION_1216.html

Dan said: Jesse suffers from a common misconception.

Wow, thanks for putting up the link to that article, Mike! There's no way anyone could have found it from the entry I spent time researching and adding additional information, links, etc. to this morning and all that.

Nitpick, Nigel, it's order Primates, not Primata.

Plus, amoebas are certainly not the most primitive microorganism (those would be bacteria, instead), and, after recent genomic sequences, most amoebas are suspected to have evolved from flagellated ancestors, especially since many flagellated protists are capable of shedding their flagella and assuming an amoeba-like lifestyle, such as the opportunistic pathogen, Naegleria fowleri, or when Euglenia is kept in a dark environment.

Jesse Hoots: Hello...You never answered my question. What did the first omoeba have for breakfast his first day? Which came first? Chicken or the egg? You answer these questions and I will denounce God for you. Will that make you happy? Jesse

Yay! - I feel better now! At least Jesse is not from Florida!

Hello…I would think you people would have better things to do than sit around and try to prove there is no God.

— Jesse Hoots

Even Einstein thought there was a God.

Nigel D: You know, I can't actually work out whether you are trying to perpetrate some kind of parody or whether you actually are as terminally thick as you seem to be.

Hello.... First off. We are made no different than other animals. We have a different brain. We are aware of ourselves. Animals don't fear death. Humans do. Animals know they can be hurt. They run from damage not death. Humans run from both. Animals may have a better life because of this. Einstein did say "If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent one". As far as knowing if there is a God, I can't say. But, I do believe there is one. If I am right and there is, Well, good for me. Where would that leave you? I don't think they should have God in schools. But let a little kid have his personal time for his own decision on God wherever he happens to be. Don't push evolution on children in school either. That can't be proven any more than God... History of the earth? I have no idea, don't want one...... Jesse

Good grief !!! I just read a few more posts. I've been called quite a few names here. Seems some of you might want what I have. It's free, just ask Him. You can't get it from a church and you sure can't dig it out of the ground on Saturn.....Oh, yes, the fella that called me a 13 year old. Sounds as if you could use some growing up yourself. Children insist on their way. You need some time out. You are welcome to your thoughts, how about me? You sound like an old Baptist preacher I once knew....Sorry I assumed ameba's came first. I wasn't there, so I shouldn't have guessed. Which one of you was there anyway?

Jesse Hoots: I wasn't there, so I shouldn't have guessed. Which one of you was there anyway?

Ravilyn Sanders: Saw a signature tag line in slashdot, a spin on Arthur C Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality".

It was assumed that you were a 13 year old because you have very poor writing skills. Humans are animals because humans are closely related to other animals. Why do you think that people perform medical experiments on animals in the first place?

And from the way you talk, you sound so conceited, that I bet you didn't think that your parents existed before you were born.

Just because you don't care about learning about the history of the World does not negate its extreme value and importance. Children need to learn about the history of the world, otherwise, they will not know how to interact with the world or with anybody.

Furthermore, people know that things came before amoebas because people studied evidence of things that came before amoebas in the exact same manner people study the evidence of extinct civilizations and the exact same manner people solve crimes that have no eye-witnesses.

Please try to overcome your apparent distaste for learning, and try learning something, otherwise, it is your own fault for being mistaken for a middle school child.

Jesse Hoots claims: Einstein did say "If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent one".

Jesse Hoots claims: Animals don't fear death.

Which one of you was there anyway?

Just a thought, but when the first amoeba sprang up. What did it have for breakfast that day?

I would think you people would have better things to do than sit around and try to prove there is no God.

Einstein did say “If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent one”.

Sorry, Jesse, that was Voltaire.

I have no distaste for learning. And please excuse my writing skills. Voltaire? I looked it up. You're right. Voltaire must be the idiot then. I have read a few things he wrote. He seems fairly level to me. Oh,yes Paul, I'll shut up for you and you go on and enjoy your pointless, athiest, dead-end life.

I have no distaste for learning. And please excuse my writing skills. Voltaire? I looked it up. You're right. Voltaire must be the idiot then. I have read a few things he wrote. He seems fairly level to me. Oh,yes Paul, I'll shut up for you and you go on and enjoy your pointless, athiest, dead-end life.

It occurred to me the other day that by the time a biologist is working as an independent researcher they have probably spent more time learning and honing their skills than a professional basketball or hockey player. The average high school graduate, on the other hand, has spent about as long working on biology as most 8-year-olds have spent playing street-hockey or basketball.

Jesse, I have no problem with people who ask questions that display their ignorance of a subject. What grates is that you clearly consider yourself to be a superior intellect and better informed than professional biologists while demonstrating that your biological knowledge is at the stage equivalent to two-bladed skates.

History of the earth? I have no idea, don't want one......

I have no distaste for learning.

I have no distaste for learning.

I believe the subject was "Gods Creation" as opposed to "Evolution". Nothing has ever evolved. It is what it has always been. Not one of you have said a word about the possibility of creation. You idiots need to go dig in the Bible instead of the ground. You use big words to make yourselves look brilliant. Quit riding on the shirt tails of real scientists. I have read quite a few papers by scientists who believe in God's work. Your lives are useless and your thoughts are too. Also, what kind of an idiot cares how old the earth is? You are the ones who need to go away. Go bend a light beam or something.

Jesse:
You should be glad there are people who are genuinely interested in finding out how the world works, and who are not constrained by bronze age myths. It has made our lives so much easier, longer, and enjoyable. It is the smug ignorance and dismissal of learning that you exhibit that scares me.

Here's wishing for a future without people like Jesse.

Jesse, re-read your own posts.
What was your motivation for posting?
Did you want to learn or just try and annoy people?
Do you think you you sound like a good Christian?

You come across as judgmental, arrogant and dismissive.
Not very Christ-like.

Do you want to learn something or just expose your own ignorance?

Lose the attitude problem and start reading some of the threads here.

Jesse writes: I believe the subject was "Gods [sic] Creation" as opposed to "Evolution".

Good grief !!! I just read a few more posts.

— Jesse Hoots

How did you develop the misconception that the subject of this thread was “God’s Creation”?

— Dan

Jesse: I have read quite a few papers by scientists who believe in God's work.

Jesse: I believe the subject was "Gods Creation" as opposed to "Evolution". Nothing has ever evolved. It is what it has always been. Not one of you have said a word about the possibility of creation. You idiots need to go dig in the Bible instead of the ground. You use big words to make yourselves look brilliant. Quit riding on the shirt tails of real scientists. I have read quite a few papers by scientists who believe in God's work. Your lives are useless and your thoughts are too. Also, what kind of an idiot cares how old the earth is? You are the ones who need to go away. Go bend a light beam or something.

Chicken or the egg? You answer these questions and I will denounce God for you. Will that make you happy? Jesse

Jesse: I believe the subject was "Gods Creation" as opposed to "Evolution". Nothing has ever evolved. It is what it has always been. Not one of you have said a word about the possibility of creation. You idiots need to go dig in the Bible instead of the ground. You use big words to make yourselves look brilliant. Quit riding on the shirt tails of real scientists. I have read quite a few papers by scientists who believe in God's work. Your lives are useless and your thoughts are too. Also, what kind of an idiot cares how old the earth is? You are the ones who need to go away. Go bend a light beam or something.

Just a guess here: If Jesse ever names the articles he's read by scientists on his side, they'll turn out to be news-stand magazine articles penned either by pseudo-scientists or by scientists opining outside their areas of expertise.

Jesse, please do not stop your musings from flowing in. To regale us as you have with your comments and beliefs has provided some really entertaining dialogue. Better than the three stooges rolled into one. Keep up the good work and do not let reality, truth or facts interfere with what you believe. And above all, do not read any of those so called scientific books that others have suggested you read. It might destroy your ability to entertain so well. God bless.
Curmugden

No, it wasn't the Pastafarians that made you a laughingstock. You people don't need any help with that, believe me!

Inteligent Design implies (for me) that what I call God is the inteligent part. Something from nothing would be (to me) evolution. I live in Central Illinois. I have watched them grow corn year after year. Every year it gets better (for the most part). They took the basic plant and moved it around until it suited our needs. Inteligent design. The corn did not do this, WE did. How is it some folks don't think it's possible someone before us took the raw materials in front of him and did this very same thing billions of years ago.

Jesse, that is artificial selection, not "Intelligent Design."

Artificial selection is the breeding and cultivation of plants and animals by humans.

"Intelligent Design" is nothing more than "We don't know how this (insert biological thing here) occurred, therefore, God A Designer Did It, and we don't need to know any further."

Jesse: Inteligent Design implies (for me) that what I call God is the inteligent part. Something from nothing would be (to me) evolution. I live in Central Illinois. I have watched them grow corn year after year. Every year it gets better (for the most part). They took the basic plant and moved it around until it suited our needs. Inteligent design. The corn did not do this, WE did. How is it some folks don't think it's possible someone before us took the raw materials in front of him and did this very same thing billions of years ago.

It's true the corn in Illinois is better all the time. Jesse points out, "The corn did not do this, WE did." Likewise, the wildflowers in Illinois prairies are brilliantly colored, because inconspicuous flowers didn't attract pollinators. The flowers did not do this. BUTTERFLIES AND BEES did. And the trees in Illinois forests are tall, because the short ones were shaded out. They didn't do it to themselves. OTHER TREES did.

Why jump to the conclusion Goddidit before you've eliminated all the natural designers?

How is it some folks don’t think it’s possible someone before us took the raw materials in front of him and did this very same thing billions of years ago.

— Jesse

"How is it some folks don’t think it’s possible someone before us..."

Anythings 'possible'.

Maybe little green men were here before us and 'Intelligently Designed' everything.

How do you go about demonstrating that scientifically?

Remember Jesse, ID is not about Christianity!
No Siree!
It's all about the science.
So...give us some science.
Just how DO you demonstrate the existence of God in a test-tube?
(giggle)

Remember Jesse, ID is not about Christianity! No Siree! It's all about the science. So...give us some science. Just how DO you demonstrate the existence of God in a test-tube? (giggle)

Obviously Jesse you are having an internal religious debate. I think if you read this letter signed by THOUSANDS of U.S. Christian Clergy "Clergy Letter Project" and some information from "religioustolerance.org" - you might be able to sleep tonight. (Everyone else - sorry about the length, I'm sure you've seen all of this before) -

-
As of December 8, 2007, the Clergy Letter Project had collected 11,094 signatures of US clergy.[1] It continues to collect more.

The letter is entitled An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science, and reads:
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.[1]
________________________________________________________________________
The clergy letter is strictly limited to Christian clergy. Zimmerman has had to decline offers from Jewish and Muslim clergy.
Since it is fundamentalist Christian ministers who have been shouting to the American people that they must choose between religion and science, it seemed reasonable to have thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy assert otherwise. It simply wouldn't be very persuasive to have leaders of other religions saying to Christians that Christian fundamentalist ministers are not speaking for all Christians.

There are four categories of beliefs about origins of the species:

Other religious views: There are probably in excess of 500 different creation stories among the world's religion that account for the diversity of life forms on Earth. All of the stories are different. --

Creation science: This is one of the religious views. It is based on the belief that God created the universe. Most believe that this happened less than 10,000 years ago, and that God created all of the species of life along with the world itself. --

Naturalistic evolution: A set of beliefs that the universe originated about 14 billion years ago; the earth coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago; life subsequently began, probably as bacteria deep in rocks, and has been evolving ever since. The process of evolution has been driven by purely natural forces, without input from a God or a Goddess or multiple deities. --

Theistic evolution: This resembles naturalistic evolution, except that God used evolution as a tool to guide the development of the different species from the simplest to most complex. --

Roman Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII released an encyclical in 1950 titled "Humani Generis." It "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis." 4 The encyclical states in part:
"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that...research and discussions, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter...However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church..." 5
In 1996, Pope John Paul II spoke at the annual meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which has been called "the Church's 'scientific senate' ". 6,7 He said, in part:
"Today, more than a half century after this ['Humani Generis'] encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory [of evolution]."
Mainline Protestant Denominations: Many members and their religious organizations adopt either the positions of Evangelicals or that of liberal denominations. To some, evolution is not really a religious issue. Others have adopted theistic evolution (a.k.a. called "process creation", or "multiple creation".) In this belief system, God originally created the universe. Later, God used evolution as the technique by which new species develop.

Liberal Protestant Denominations: These churches have accepted and even promoted the theory of evolution for decades. Although there are many unresolved details about the evolution of species on earth and of the matter and energy in the rest of the universe, scientists have reached a consensus on the broad mechanisms of evolution. Most researchers agree that the universe originated at a "Big Bang" some 20 billion years ago. Some matter coalesced into stars of which our sun is one. The earth and other planets coalesced out of stellar material many billions of years ago. A few billion years in the past, the first elementary forms of life appeared; these evolved into the multiplicity of species that we see today, including humanity. By accepting evolution, liberal Christians have either:

assigned symbolic meanings to the stages of creation in the two creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2, or

treated those passages as creation myths, similar to the hundreds of creation stories from numerous other religions.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) - In 1909, the church made an official statement, and it is a rather long, wide-ranging discourse on the nature of man. With regards to evolution, it includes the passage,
“It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men....”
Shortly after this appeared in 1909, the church received a number of inquiries asking if this passage should be interpreted as an official condemnation of the scientific theory of evolution. In response, in an editorial in the Improvement Era (the equivalent of the Ensign at the time), emphasized that evolution was one of the three permitted views on the means used by God to achieve the physical creation. ... Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church...

Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians: A key belief system of these faith groups is their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. Since Genesis 1 describes how God created the universe, and in a certain sequence, there is no doubt that he did exactly that. Rev. Jim Harding of the Utah/Idaho Southern Baptist Convention commented: "We were created by God, we didn't just evolve by accident. It was not a process of moving from one animal form to another, but rather, as Genesis teaches, that each was made in its own order. In fact, [humans and animals] were made on different days." Most conservative Christians are particularly insistent on the literal truth of the creation stories in Genesis. If those passages were shown to be false, then the Garden of Eden story, the fall of humanity and the alienation between God and man would all be in doubt. Some feel that this could negate the need for Jesus' execution and resurrection. Some believe that the entire conservative Christian message would collapse like a deck of cards, if Genesis is shown to be a fable. One writer has said: "Overthrow Genesis and you destroy the whole foundation of Christianity. Evolution is just a modern version of the old Pelagian heresy. If Genesis is not historically accurate, then there was no Fall of man and no need for a Savior. Man is then free to exalt himself and even to take Christ's place on earth!!" 1 Calvin stated that those who disagree with the literal truth of Genesis' creation stories "basely insult the Creator." After death he predicted they will meet "a judge who will annihilate them."

Let's say you are a flower. To spread your offspring you need a bee or bird. Or another given way to spread it. How are you going to create your own bee? And if you did come up with a bee, how are you going to guarantee the bees' survival? Then you got the bee. Poor thing needs everything around it (from day ONE) to supply what the flower (you) needs. How does the bee get what it needs? The way I see it, everything needs eveything from day one. Let's say there is a designer of all things we see. He or it had a begining I assume. Where did it come from? Thoughts of this stuff can go on and on. I do honestly believe we need to try and preserve what we have before we lose it. Regardless of how it came about.... Little green men? Why would you say something like that? Do you honestly believe you are the most intelligent thing ever to come along? Remember, eternity never started.

The way you see it, Jesse, is wrong.

The bee adapts to it's surroundings. Before the evolution of flowering plants the bee's ancestors would have fed on something else. When the flowers evolved, bees evolved to take advantage of this new niche. The flowers then evolved in order to take further advantage of the bees. Ta-da. No need for magic men or little green men. A simple explanation but I don't have time for something more complex, I'm going out. I'm sure someone else will explain it in more complex detail for you.

jesse hoots: How are you going to create your own bee?

Paul...Don't know. Don't care. They have what they have. Just to play the game I'll say six. Unless they up and grow some more depending on their own taste and need. You're funny.

jesse hoots: Paul...Don't know. Don't care. They have what they have. Just to play the game I'll say six. Unless they up and grow some more depending on their own taste and need. You're funny.

Hello…You never answered my question. What did the first omoeba have for breakfast his first day? Which came first? Chicken or the egg? You answer these questions and I will denounce God for you. Will that make you happy? Jesse

— Jesse Hoots

Stanton....Make me an egg from thin air and hand it to me. And it must have a chicken in it and an egg in it and a chicken in it and an egg in it.........

Stanton...If you don't get your way, you namecall? You evolve that way or is it just you?

Yeah, Jesse's about 13 years old. And a troll. Is anyone under the impression that there's any possibility of having a conversation with someone who wants to argue about the origins of diversity but "doesn't care" about how many legs insects have?

Don't feed the troll.

jesse hoots: Paul...Don't know. Don't care. They have what they have. Just to play the game I'll say six. Unless they up and grow some more depending on their own taste and need. You're funny.

jesse hoots: Stanton....Make me an egg from thin air and hand it to me. And it must have a chicken in it and an egg in it and a chicken in it and an egg in it.........

jesse Hoots: Stanton...If you don't get your way, you namecall? You evolve that way or is it just you?

Mike... How long is a 16d box nail? Don't know? You must be stupid then or just plain ignorant..... I know. These things concern me with my work. I don't do much with bugs. If you want to know about bugs, you should go look it up.

jesse Hoots: Mike... How long is a 16d box nail? Don't know? You must be stupid then or just plain ignorant..... I know. These things concern me with my work. I don't do much with bugs. If you want to know about bugs, you should go look it up.

Jesse,

If you don't care about the origins of the diversity of life, why are you here arguing about it? See, I don't care about 16d box nails, so I don't tell carpenters how to do their job. What makes you think you're qualified to come here and tell a bunch of biologists what they should think and how they should do their jobs?

This is what makes you an ignorant troll as opposed to just plain ignorant, as I readily admit to being about box nails, piston rods, and any number of other things.

So tell me, Jesse, what the presence of a truncated mating type site in the genome of Cryptococcus neoformans tells us about its evolutionary history. These things concern my work. I don't do much with nails. If you want to know about nails, you should go look it up.

Stanton.... I'll bet you believe in ghosts, don't you? And Santa. I'll bet you wear big thick glasses. Do you wear a pocket protector? Can you spell "NERD"? That's you. LOL

Mike O'Risal: So tell me, Jesse, what the presence of a truncated mating type site in the genome of Cryptococcus neoformans tells us about its evolutionary history. These things concern my work. I don't do much with nails. If you want to know about nails, you should go look it up.

Just a reminder to lurkers that Jesse Hoots, jesse Hoots, Jesse hoots, jesse hoots and just plain Jesse (shoot me if I left one out or added one that wasn't there) has/have yet to answer the my simple questions.

And a reminder to the regulars that he/she/they can look these things up too, so don't take the bait.

jesse Hoots: How long is a 16d box nail? Don't know? You must be stupid then or just plain ignorant..... I know. These things concern me with my work. I don't do much with bugs. If you want to know about bugs, you should go look it up.

Stanton inquired: Cryptococcus? The deadly inhaled fungus?

Jesse Hoots: Stanton.... I'll bet you believe in ghosts, don't you? And Santa. I'll bet you wear big thick glasses. Do you wear a pocket protector? Can you spell "NERD"? That's you. LOL

Mike... Sounds like a salad. I could be wrong.

Nitpick, Nigel, it’s order Primates, not Primata.

— Stanton

Plus, amoebas are certainly not the most primitive microorganism (those would be bacteria, instead), and, after recent genomic sequences, most amoebas are suspected to have evolved from flagellated ancestors, especially since many flagellated protists are capable of shedding their flagella and assuming an amoeba-like lifestyle, such as the opportunistic pathogen, Naegleria fowleri, or when Euglenia is kept in a dark environment.

jesse hoots said: Stanton….Make me an egg from thin air and hand it to me. And it must have a chicken in it and an egg in it and a chicken in it and an egg in it….…..

As many observers will have realised by now, Jesse Hoots seems to be acting like a classic fundy troll.

Issuing challenges with no real understanding of what he/she is asking.

Making wild claims with no attempt to back them up with evidence, or with anything remotely resembling logical reasoning. All these claims do is expose their author's breathtaking inanity.

Ignoring questions asked of him/her.

Paying no attention to answers provided to his/her questions or challenges.

Failing to address genuine objections to arguments he/she has made.

Moron may be a step up from NERD. I'll bet you would be funny as shit drunk. A drunk nerd trying to count bug legs. LOL LOL

Nigel D: Would that be Euglena to which you refer, Stanton...?

So, would it be premature of me to suggest that it's time for Jesse to meet The Bathroom Wall?

jesse hoots: Paul...Don't know. Don't care. They have what they have. Just to play the game I'll say six.

Jesse Hoots -

If I wanted to I could go back and shred your comments line by line line. They really are that full of ignorant statements and illogical claims. I won't, because I do not consider it worth the effort.

You have demonstrated in your posts that you have no interest in learning about science. You have demonstrated that you consider your present view of the world to be the only correct one and you have closed your mind to the possibility that others may exist that are just as valid, or perhaps more so.

All that remains is to wonder if you will answer Frank J's questions, and share with us some details of what it is you actually consider to be the Truth.

Oops - I just noticed the repeated word in comment #138863. Sorry 'bout that, folks. Still, you get the idea.

Paul Burnett: You are now on record as having spoken against the teachings of your primary knowledge resource, and are clearly in theological error.

Is Jesse what we are up against? The answer is a qualified YES. Jesse seems more belligerent than most, but his basic understanding of evolution is probably on par with about 60% of the US population. He doesn't care about it, and doesn't think it matters. This is a frightening combination.

I started visiting this site about a year ago to get some free education in evolutionary biology. I have, and I'd like to thank all of you who take the time to answer the legitimate questions, or to at least point the questioner in a direction to do some self study.

It's obvious an education is not what Jesse is looking for. Just dumb argument, or maybe Jesse just likes the attention. Either way, this thread has become a waste of your valuable time.

Nigel....Simply put, there are too many questions. The problem is we are stuck on a floating rock in the middle of nowhere, and to think we can figure it out is rather useless. A few posts back a man said he was working on a biological situation. That's of value. And I appreciate people who do that stuff. He may be coming up with something that may benefit my Grandchildren. May have been Mike, not sure.

jesse hoots asks: Do you honestly believe you are the most intelligent thing ever to come along?

jesse hoots opined: The problem is we are stuck on a floating rock in the middle of nowhere, and to think we can figure it out is rather useless.

A few posts back a man said he was working on a biological situation. That’s of value. And I appreciate people who do that stuff. He may be coming up with something that may benefit my Grandchildren. May have been Mike, not sure.

jesse hoots: Nigel....Simply put, there are too many questions. The problem is we are stuck on a floating rock in the middle of nowhere, and to think we can figure it out is rather useless. A few posts back a man said he was working on a biological situation. That's of value. And I appreciate people who do that stuff. He may be coming up with something that may benefit my Grandchildren. May have been Mike, not sure.

Don't know. Don't care.

If everyone, not just biologists and scientists, had the head stuck in the ground mindset jesse hoots has, not only would the leading causes of death still be poor sanitation, diarrhea, starvation, and speaking one's mind, but, if a person didn't produce at least 5 children by the age 12, it wasn't likely that they would never live to see grandchildren.

jesse hoots: Nigel....Simply put, there are too many questions. The problem is we are stuck on a floating rock in the middle of nowhere, and to think we can figure it out is rather useless. A few posts back a man said he was working on a biological situation. That's of value. And I appreciate people who do that stuff. He may be coming up with something that may benefit my Grandchildren. May have been Mike, not sure.

Don't know. Don't care.

Jesse says, "Let's say you are a flower..."

Well, yes, I AM a flower. (That's what a hoary puccoon is, a flower on the Illinois prairie.) But, Jesse, you're not looking at evolution the way it happened, which is gradually, with small changes accumulating over many, many centuries.

Scientists look at several kinds of data to track the evolution of species. One way is to look at related species which may still have retained the characteristics of their ancestors.

In the case of flowers, we know that many flowers, even today, are not pollinated by birds or bees, but by wind-- which, of course, existed long before flowers grew on dry land.

In the case of bees, we know many insects chomp down on leaves and flowers, without doing the plant any good at all. (Plants appeared on dry land before insects, so the bugs had something to eat right from the start.)

So it's plausible that there could be gradual steps in which flowers and bees evolved in tandem, until the flowers were dependent on the bees for pollination, and the bees no longer chowed down on leaves or petals, but went after the nectar and pollen exclusively. Whether these plausible, gradual steps actually occurred can then be checked against fossils and other remnants of ancient, living things. (Pollen, for instance, lasts a long, long time.)

That's how the study of evolution works. And in every case-- without exception-- that scientists have looked for living or fossil intermediate forms, they have found them. That's why scientists are unimpressed with creationism. There are literally mountains (I mean, like the Rockies and the Alps) full of evidence for the gradual transformation of living things.

hoary puccoon: ... That's how the study of evolution works. And in every case-- without exception-- that scientists have looked for living or fossil intermediate forms, they have found them. That's why scientists are unimpressed with creationism. There are literally mountains (I mean, like the Rockies and the Alps) full of evidence for the gradual transformation of living things.

Don't know. Don't care.

Carl...Well put. But I am not against you in any way. When I am attacked with name calling, I must admit I tend to return it. Human nature I suppose. And you must also admit, I am alone here with my thoughts on origins of life. These folks want to be right so badly it's almost sad. Church folk do the same thing in the other direction. They go too far with a simple thought. I think intelligent life started all this, and now Intelligent life (humans) are in the position to enhance and change it. Hopefully in a positive way. Well, wife wants the machine so I will say goodbye.

Jesse:
As I mentioned, I've been visiting multiple science sites to get an education. I started out knowing almost nothing about the details of biology and evolution. Over this time I have seen a lot of name calling. But as Mike O'Risal stated above, someone who has spent a life time studying a discipline will at times be more than a little piqued at being told they are all wrong, by someone who by their own admission doesn't know the field at all!

Ask questions, but don't assume these folks are just making this stuff up. You can actually check the answers and references for yourself, as I have done. It takes time, but you'll be better off for it. And it's free.

Mike O'Risal writes: So, would it be premature of me to suggest that it's time for Jesse to meet The Bathroom Wall?

Don't know about the quality of the nerds Jesse's been meeting, but this antenna-head geek only counts bug legs while dead sober. I occasionally teach basic entomological principles to K-12 teachers and biology grad students, and I take that responsibility very seriously. Of course, most of them actually want to learn something about arthropod identification, and we all treat one another with respect.

Jesse, on the other hand, appears to have been fired up by someone -- maybe either a fundamentalist preacher or the host of a crank website -- to seek out sites frequented by real scientists, real teachers, and truly science-oriented laypeople, troll them with every fallacy, non sequitur, and outright lie ever bellowed out under a Chautauqua tent, and sit back cackling to himself without ever bothering to consider the possibility that the meager content of this entire hot-air barrage has been refuted over and over and over and over and over again.

Face it -- he's not here to learn anything about biology, chemistry, or any other science. He is a bagged specimen of that common and pestiferous bird, the Blue-Streaked Chain Yanker. And if any species on the planet has ever been intelligently designed, that one sure isn't it.

And it's still a very, very bad -- and potentially very expensive -- idea to deliberately muddle up science classes with religion in a U.S. public school.

So how 'bout them Floridians?

I agree with Dan. I think Jesse may actually be curious enough to be open to learning. It certainly takes guts to come here with some of the stuff he's written.

If he poses questions, rather than assertions, he can actually learn something here.

jesse hoots: Carl...Well put. But I am not against you in any way. When I am attacked with name calling, I must admit I tend to return it. Human nature I suppose. And you must also admit, I am alone here with my thoughts on origins of life. These folks want to be right so badly it's almost sad. Church folk do the same thing in the other direction. They go too far with a simple thought. I think intelligent life started all this, and now Intelligent life (humans) are in the position to enhance and change it. Hopefully in a positive way. Well, wife wants the machine so I will say goodbye.

Mike O'Risal said: From what you’ve said, I take it you do carpentry. Have you ever had someone walk up to you while you were on the job who knew nothing about what you do and start trying to tell you how you should be working? What label did you put on that person in your mind?

carl: I agree with Dan. I think Jesse may actually be curious enough to be open to learning. It certainly takes guts to come here with some of the stuff he's written. If he poses questions, rather than assertions, he can actually learn something here.

How is it some folks don’t think it’s possible someone before us took the raw materials in front of him and did this very same thing billions of years ago.

I am not against you in any way.

Since you Scientist folks know everything, I figured you knew this also. You folks need to consider more than what the eye sees. Simply set and figure just how you could possibly be. It’s not possible in any way we can figure. There is only one way. How could you refuse something so simple?

Simply put, there are too many questions. The problem is we are stuck on a floating rock in the middle of nowhere, and to think we can figure it out is rather useless.

Dan... My email is: Hoots@one-eleven.net
Would like to hear from you, I think we could have some great conversations. We can share our thoughts without having quite so much bitterness. Jesse

I think Jesse has interesting things to teach us. He has demonstrated several misconceptions about biology, history, science, and religion, to be sure, but as I read his comments something comes through strongly:

He knows there's a lot humans don't understand, and he objects to folks who claim to understand everything. His misconception is that he thinks evolutionary biologists claim to understand all, whereas in fact it's the ID theorists who claim to understand all.

I would like to hear more from Jesse about what he thinks about evolution, where he got his ideas, whether he thinks evolution and religion are compatible, etc.

Of course, that's just me. (My brother's a carpenter, and we spend a lot of time taking about nails.)

Dan.... email: Hoots@one-eleven.net
We can trade some thoughts.

Popper's Ghost.... I'll say it again "I'm not against you". I'm not against evolution either. I see evidence of it every day. But that don't make it so. I see evidence of God everyday, but that don't it so. Evidence is not proof of anything. All I have is hope for a God. I'm sorry you don't like that. I wish you had the same hope.

Jesse:
Just don't try to tell God what to do. Evolution *is* God's Creation. If that is what you want to believe. Nobody can prove that ain't so (or that it is, for that matter).

But if you insist on a tinkering God that needs to continually fine tune creation, then God has intruded into the natural world and therefore could be measured, and observed. Then what of your faith?

I think your attempts to force the real world to fit your religious beliefs on human origins so you can believe in God is what is ticking off some of the folks here. And making you look foolish to boot. See what St. Augustine had to say about this. Follow the link: http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm

And the evidence for evolution that we have may not prove anything, but it certainly supports the theory! That is the best science can do.

Carl....We may have reached a middle ground. I'm not telling God what to do. He already did His thing. He gave this planet over to you and me. What we do with it is up to us. He won't interfere till it's over. We will do the fine tuning. If we use our intelligence to enhance a green bean and hence feed the world, then we did good. I'm not attempting to force the world to do anything. But I won't sit back and let a theorist dictate to my children. My children must make their own independent decision on these things. I don't want my children to be scared half to death by the church anymore than I want them to think their ancestors were apes. St. Augustine. What he thought may be interesting. What he says is not. They say it enough times and it becomes fact because they say so. Be an individual, tryout your own thoughts. Go out tomorrow and look at a tree for a couple hours. Don't read about it in a book. Just consider the tree. Then let me know what you think of the tree in simple terms. No high tech words, just your words. No-one else's. I want to hear what's in your heart and mind, not what's in an old book. If you are honest (and I think you will be) I'll let my children see it.

I’ll say it again

Simply set and figure just how you could possibly be. It’s not possible in any way we can figure.

There is only one way.

How could you refuse something so simple?

And you must also admit, I am alone here with my thoughts on origins of life.

— jesse hoots

... I’m not telling God what to do. He already did His thing. He gave this planet over to you and me. What we do with it is up to us. He won’t interfere till it’s over.

— Jesse Hoots

We will do the fine tuning.

If we use our intelligence to enhance a green bean and hence feed the world, then we did good. I’m not attempting to force the world to do anything.

But I won’t sit back and let a theorist dictate to my children.

My children must make their own independent decision on these things.

I don’t want my children to be scared half to death by the church anymore than I want them to think their ancestors were apes.

St. Augustine. What he thought may be interesting. What he says is not.

They say it enough times and it becomes fact because they say so.

Be an individual, tryout your own thoughts.

Go out tomorrow and look at a tree for a couple hours.

Don’t read about it in a book. Just consider the tree.

Then let me know what you think of the tree in simple terms.

No high tech words, just your words.

No-one else’s. I want to hear what’s in your heart and mind,

not what’s in an old book.

If you are honest (and I think you will be) I’ll let my children see it.

Jesse...here are some very old Q and A's about God:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not Omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is God both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

-
Epicurus (341-270 BCE)

Jesse Hoots: Hello...I would think you people would have better things to do than sit around and try to prove there is no God.

Jesse,

“Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.” Henry Louis Mencken

This is the essence of intelligent design.

Jesse: You idiots need to go dig in the Bible instead of the ground.

Jesse Hoots says,

"Go out tomorrow and look at a tree for a couple hours. Don’t read about it in a book. Just consider the tree. Then let me know what you think of the tree in simple terms. No high tech words, just your words."

If I were back in Illinois right now, which tree would you like me to look at? Red oak? White oak? Burr oak? Pin oak? Red maple? Silver maple? Sugar maple? I remember many trips to the Morton Arboretum in Lisle, Illinois. It took a long time just to tell the trees apart-- looking, not just reading about them in books. Then I learned the woodland wildflowers. They only bloom in the spring before the trees are in bud. The wildflowers in the prairie are completely different, and something is in bloom all summer there. But the flowers blooming in May are different species from the flowers blooming in August on the same plot of ground. I can't make it simple. It's a complicated system. And that's in Illinois, where the winters are harsh and the land was scraped clean by glaciers just a few thousand years ago.

Now I'm in the Caribbean, looking out my window at palm trees. I notice the same thing about the palms that I noticed about the oaks back in Illinois. There are many similar species-- coconut palms, date palms, some with leaves like feathers and others like fans. That makes perfect sense to me if species evolved over time, and no sense at all, if everything had to be separately created. Why wouldn't God have designed one kind of palm tree and one kind of oak tree and called it a day?

Now, Jesse, why don't you take your kids to the Morton Arboretum and YOU really look at the trees? Why are there so many oaks with subtle differences? Look at the bark on a white oak growing in the forest, and then at a burr oak out in the prairie, which is often swept by fire. Are they similar? Could the thick bark on the burr oak be something like a white oak that's spent more time in the school of hard knocks? Which one is taller? (Which one grows in the forest with other tall trees competing for sunlight?)

And while you're at it, take your kids to the ape house at Lincoln Park or Brookfield Zoo, and look at the apes. Don't read somebody's fancy words, for or against evolution. Just look at the animals. Watch the way the mothers cuddle their babies, and the way they get into squabbles, without really hurting each other. Be honest. Do they look and act more like lions and badgers and antelopes-- or more like us?

I'm not a biologist, and most of what I've learned about evolution hasn't come from peer-reviewed journals. But I have spent time looking, really looking, at the natural world-- a lot of that time in Illinois, at a matter of fact. And what I read in creationist literature presents the world as some simple, cardboard cut-out, cartoon version of the world I've seen with my own eyes. Based on my own experience, evolution is the only explanation that makes sense.

Okay, way OT, I know, but I didn't know where else to ask this, and maybe it's time Jesse was derailed anyway.

My understanding of diploid/haploid, gamete/somatic cell is a bit fuzzy, so...

How would a fused chromosome 2 become established in a population in the first place? As a common variant? A recessive duplication? Were there early viable unions of 2x2p or 2x2q?

"Is a puzzlement." - Yul Brynner.

Nigel... Note was not to you Ape Boy. Go climb a tree. There is no way of reasoning with you ..... Note was for Carl. I'll wait and see what he says' and let it go at that.

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God holds other people in contempt. Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological certainty."

Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)

"Certainty is profoundly comforting, and hatred pays a high dividend in emotional excitement."

Aldous Huxley

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Voltaire (1694-1778)

jesse hoots: ...I'll let my children see it.

Paul....Jesus loves you.

Hoots says "Paul….Jesus loves you."

No, he doesn't, I talked to Jesus this AM and he said
"I don't like Paul and I especially don't like Jesse Hoots"
He also said pass this advice to Hoots, "You don't have to be stupid to be a good Christian"

But you have to be stupid to be a Christian?

jesse hoots: But you have to be stupid to be a Christian?

fnxtr: How would a fused chromosome 2 become established in a population in the first place? As a common variant? A recessive duplication? Were there early viable unions of 2x2p or 2x2q?

Jesse, think before you post.
Please.
Try reading this site a little to understand the level of discussion here.
This is not a chat site for people who failed high school and luv Jeesuz.

raven:

fnxtr: How would a fused chromosome 2 become established in a population in the first place? As a common variant? A recessive duplication? Were there early viable unions of 2x2p or 2x2q?

It wouldn't be hard. Karyotype is fluid and changeable in populations. Mice have 2N=40 but populations are known with 2N=32 and even combinations in between. A mating between separate and fused chromosome 2 contributors would yield fertile offspring. Even humans don't all have the same karyotype. Balanced translocations are not that uncommon and I know 2 such personally. They yield normal offspring but there is a fertility hit. Unbalanced genomes are not usually viable and matings between normal and balanced translocations will produce both balanced and unbalanced zygotes. Presumably in the evolution between last common ancestor chimp and human, there was a population bottleneck or a population with fused chromosome 2s expanded at the expense of split 2's. We don't know the details of when it happened. FWIW, you aren't derailing the thread. It derailed long ago.

Wikipedia: XX male syndrome XX male syndrome occurs when there has been a recombination in the formation of the male gametes, causing the SRY-portion of the Y chromosome to move to the X chromosome. When such an X chromosome contributes to the child, the development will lead to a male, because of the SRY gene.

Nigel posted a long, thoughtful, and non-insulting response to Jesse's comments, and Jesse's only response was a quick insult and a lame excuse to ignore the whole comment. That tells us all we need to know about Jesse's intellectual abilities -- and his "spirituality."

hoary puccoon said: Now I’m in the Caribbean, looking out my window at palm trees.

Thanks, Raven! Which only leads to more questions, which is a good thing. (Like, was there a survival advantage, or was it just contingency?)

fnxtr

Atheistic evolution seems very illogical to me. According to the atheistic view a singularity of infinite density randomly appeared from nothing and exploded. I have heard a theory that the big bang was caused by two membranes colliding. Either way energy, matter, or whatever the membrane was supposedly was made of had to appear from nothing caused by nothing which is illogical. The only other option is that this membrane or whatever supposedly first existed is eternal which would give it the quality of being supernatural. There is really only three options. 1.) If your iq is below 70 believe a singularity or membrane of some sort formed from nothing and then caused the big bang. 2.) Believe the stuff that caused the big bang is eternal - something supposedly inanimate having supernatural powers. 3.) Believe the universe's origin is from an intelligent being with supernatural powers.

The theory of evolution does not depend on the logic or validity of the Big Bang theory, nor does it have anything to do with singularities. It does not even depend on having a firm theory of abiogenesis; unless life always existed then there was at once one occasion on which life appeared without help from prior life. (Also, a non-evolutionary origin of species requires more life from non-life events than does an evolutionary origin, a point that antievolutionists tend to ignore.)

Eternal does not imply supernatural.

One does not have to "believe" in membranes in order to contemplate whether or not that hypothesis is consistent with the relevant data, or to contemplate where one might look for counter-evidence to that hypothesis.

Henry

Nigel D,

Thank you for the thoughtful post to Jesse. I appreciated it.

Something said...
"Atheistic evolution..."

As opposed to what? Religious evolution?
What are you talking about?

"According to the atheistic view a singularity of infinite density randomly appeared from nothing and exploded."

Huh? What's the atheistic view?
Where do you get your info from?

Or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

Atheistic evolution seems very illogical to me.

According to the atheistic view a singularity of infinite density randomly appeared from nothing and exploded.

The only other option is that this membrane or whatever supposedly first existed is eternal which would give it the quality of being supernatural

There is really only three options.

If your iq is below 70 believe a singularity or membrane of some sort formed from nothing and then caused the big bang.

That tells us all we need to know about Jesse’s intellectual abilities

But you have to be stupid to be a Christian?

Well, I'll be darned. "Something" has happened. Score is now: Ape people 0 , God 2 .... I knew there was someone out there with a brain, good one "something".

Good thought.... If it started as a void with nothing in it, just how could you come up with the materials to have a universe? Impossible to figure. But it all came about. Then you had the earth which was totaly dead. But you have water and oxygen. That's handy. Now a rock (over time) stands up and walks. Hmmmmmm Without any assistance this happened? Or was it all made in seven days by a situation we can't fathon?

Nigel… Note was not to you Ape Boy. Go climb a tree. There is no way of reasoning with you ….. Note was for Carl. I’ll wait and see what he says’ and let it go at that.

so dear rude Hoots, who made your god, did he just appear out of nothing

that is "If it started as a void with nothing in it"

Go back to your cage and have a bannana and chill out. How's that for arrogant? Or is that rude? I don't know the difference because I'm stupid, right? I may not be informed on every little aspect of this world, but I am far from stupid. I came on this board to try and discover a few things that may help me understand more about Gods' creation. I think some of these people have something to say that can aide me. When someone tries to hurt or attack me, I ALWAYS return it. I do the same with kindness, I return it. ...................And to hoary puccoon, I liked the post you did on Jan 1. That was interesting and well thought out. Did not know that was a flowers name. I understand the evidence of these things. Does not prove anything for me, but it does tend to make a person think. Thanks for the post, and thanks for not calling me names. Could you explain to me what an ID theorist is?

But you have to be stupid to be a Christian?

I said "IF" it started as a void. And you can call me Jesse. And He's not my God. I think He belongs to everyone. Anyway, how do you think this all started?

I didn't say insects have four legs. Better go back and read again. I think someone (yesterday?) said there was a certain grasshopper that had four legs. I remember saying they had six. Counting insect legs really isn't my thing. If you are curious about those things, you should go to the Library.

Did not know the Bible said insects had four legs. Maybe it got hit by a chariot or something. LOL

Jesse, you're being rude.
Please stop.

If you want to ask serious questions, then fine.
If you want to provoke people then please go do it at church or something.

Act like an adult. Act like a Christian.

Remember. WWJD?

jesse hoots: I said "IF" it started as a void. And you can call me Jesse. And He's not my God. I think He belongs to everyone. Anyway, how do you think this all started?

Jesse Hoots: Hello.... Just a thought, but when the first amoeba sprang up. What did it have for breakfast that day? Everything alive needs to eat. Since you Scientist folks know everything, I figured you knew this also. You folks need to consider more than what the eye sees. Simply set and figure just how you could possibly be. It's not possible in any way we can figure. There is only one way. How could you refuse something so simple? It was laid out by a mind far superior to ours......Jesse in Illinois

jesse hoots said (after having been politely informed of the answers to his many off-topic questions): I came on this board to try and discover a few things that may help me understand more about Gods’ creation. I think some of these people have something to say that can aide me. When someone tries to hurt or attack me, I ALWAYS return it. I do the same with kindness, I return it…

You seem to be never satisfied with the answers given here, yet you always come back to ask new silly questions and strew stupid insults around like so much monkeypoo. This puts the lie to your latter quoted statement above.

So, tell us please, why you suppose this superior mind thought it proper to give you two ears and two eyes, but only one mouth? Or, on second thoughts, never mind responding again.

Nigel… Note was not to you Ape Boy.

— Jesse Hoots

Go climb a tree.

There is no way of reasoning with you ….

Note was for Carl. I’ll wait and see what he says’ and let it go at that.

But you have to be stupid to be a Christian?

— Jesse Hoots

Hello…You never answered my question. What did the first omoeba have for breakfast his first day? Which came first? Chicken or the egg? You answer these questions and I will denounce God for you. Will that make you happy? Jesse

— Jesse Hoots #138733

Atheistic evolution seems very illogical to me.

— something

According to the atheistic view a singularity of infinite density randomly appeared from nothing and exploded. I have heard a theory that the big bang was caused by two membranes colliding. Either way energy, matter, or whatever the membrane was supposedly was made of had to appear from nothing caused by nothing which is illogical.

The only other option is that this membrane or whatever supposedly first existed is eternal which would give it the quality of being supernatural.

There is really only three options. 1.) If your iq is below 70 believe a singularity or membrane of some sort formed from nothing and then caused the big bang. 2.) Believe the stuff that caused the big bang is eternal - something supposedly inanimate having supernatural powers. 3.) Believe the universe’s origin is from an intelligent being with supernatural powers.

Nigel posted a long, thoughtful, and non-insulting response to Jesse’s comments,

— Raging Bee

and Jesse’s only response was a quick insult and a lame excuse to ignore the whole comment. That tells us all we need to know about Jesse’s intellectual abilities – and his “spirituality.”

Nigel D, Thank you for the thoughtful post to Jesse. I appreciated it.

— rog

Well, I’ll be darned. “Something” has happened. Score is now: Ape people 0 , God 2 …. I knew there was someone out there with a brain, good one “something”.

— Jesse Hoots

... If it started as a void with nothing in it, just how could you come up with the materials to have a universe?

— Jesse Hoots

Impossible to figure.

But it all came about. Then you had the earth which was totaly dead. But you have water and oxygen.

That’s handy.

Now a rock (over time) stands up and walks.

Hmmmmmm Without any assistance this happened?

Or was it all made in seven days by a situation we can’t fathon?

For the jeebus trolls like Jesse Hooters and Something. What did Noah and the animals eat after the flood?

The plants would have died during the flood. Where were the wheat, rice, oats, barley, or whatever that they would have needed? Or did they all live on algae?

The carnivores from the arc of course would have rapidly wiped out the herbivore species and then died.

Why does the bible speak of the animals in pairs and not the untold millions of plants and even fishes, shell fishes, sea mammals. Besides the plants, almost all of the fish must have died because of the mixing of fresh water and salt water. Very few probably could have adapted to the new mixture.

But there are land/aquatic mammals - seals, otters - and other species - frogs and such - that might have survived.

Go back to your cage and have a bannana and chill out. How’s that for arrogant? Or is that rude?

— Jesse Hoots

I don’t know the difference because I’m stupid, right?

I may not be informed on every little aspect of this world, but I am far from stupid.

I came on this board to try and discover a few things that may help me understand more about Gods’ creation.

I think some of these people have something to say that can aide me. When someone tries to hurt or attack me, I ALWAYS return it.

I do the same with kindness, . . . Did not know that was a flowers name. I understand the evidence of these things. Does not prove anything for me,

. . . Could you explain to me what an ID theorist is?

I didn’t say insects have four legs. Better go back and read again. I think someone (yesterday?) said there was a certain grasshopper that had four legs. I remember saying they had six. Counting insect legs really isn’t my thing.

— Jesse Hoots

If you are curious about those things, you should go to the Library.

I came on this board to try and discover a few things that may help me understand more about Gods’ creation.

— Jesse Hoots

bernarda: The plants would have died during the flood. Where were the wheat, rice, oats, barley, or whatever that they would have needed? Or did they all live on algae?

What did Noah and the animals eat after the flood?

— bernarda

Sorta like the false appearance of an old universe.

— Father Wolf

OK all - sorry for going "Off topic", but the BoE meeting in Jax is in a couple of hours and I need some input - if you have any. Remember I'll only have three minutes to speak. Here's what I have so far: - -

Thank you for the opportunity to address the panel today. I am here to direct attention to the need for improved science standards which are aligned with the scientific community.

As you are aware, our current science standards have received a grade of FAILING because of the gap that exists between the scientific community and our current accepted curriculum.

The new standards, as written, will close that gap and allow our students to be more competitive in the GLOBAL scientific community.

Of the many arguments you will hear against the new standards, specifically evolution, is that there is an alternate “Theory”, called “intelligent design”. Those who argue for intelligent design are attempting once again to introduce religion into the school system in violation of the US Constitution’s Establishment Clause and the many Federal Court rulings. The most recent being the Kitzmiller v. Dover case where Judge Jones ruled unequivocally that Intelligent Design is a religious based ideology and not science.

Clearly one of the many, many reasons that Judge Jones ruled this way was because of an admission by , a leading “Intelligent design” advocate Dr. Michael Behe, that there have not been any scientific peer reviews of “Irreducible Complexity” - the MAIN idea behind the “Intelligent Design” movement._____ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1______

In the wake of the many rulings and clear lack of scientific evidence supporting Intelligent Design as anything other than a religious ideology - ID proponents have been unable to get ID introduced into the biology curriculum and have now fallen back to a secondary attack; which they call “Teach the Controversy”. The thrust of their argument is to say that evolution is “Full of Holes” and not a fact - but only a theory like Intelligent Design.

Unfortunately they are overlooking the scientific method and accepted scientific practices, and clearly demonstrate no understanding of what the term theory means. As I am sure the Board of Education is aware, a theory is simply an explanation that is testable and unifies a broad array of scientific observation. In that regard, evolution has withstood the test of time and has continually been strengthened.

Darwin's theory is about the origin of species, not the origin of life. Acceptance of evolution does not rule out accepting the belief that evolution is one of God's tools.

For the sake of all of our students, I urge you to adopt the new standards and give our students the tools to compete in the global scientific community. I also urge you to not make the same mistake the Dover School Board did.

Thank you

In Sunday School I was taught that the Earth was all fresh and new with the plants in place as if nothing had happened. Sorta like the false appearance of an old universe.

Stacy

The other side is more likely to attack evolution on "alleged weaknesses" which have been refuted many times over. They would have to be really dumb and not too well coached by DI if they bring up ID.

The Florida standards need to reflect the best possible science, which the professional science community uniformly agrees, includes evolution, presented in an uncompromised fashion.

Florida students deserve a 21st century science education, not a 15th century science education. Anything less weakens science education overall, and would result in irreversible damage to Florida students and the economy of the state.

Hope this little bit helps and that it gets to you in time.

Thank you! :) Can I use some of that?

Stacy

You are welcomed to use whatever parts you think will help in the fight against the fundies.

Thanks JJ - Did you notice if I had any inaccuracies?

Nigel... Everyone is ignorant of many things. Because I don't bow to everything you say does not make me ignorant. You are obviously ignorant as to what ignorance is. And I don't say that to hurt your feelings or slur you in any way. Folks were talking about "Evidence" here and there. Evidence may mean something else to you, but for ME it means: what I see or what I may think to be the case. This does not make me right, it makes me an individual. The things I see may appear different to you. You are not ignorant because you see it different than I do. Your mind simply sees it in another way. Evidence says there is a New York City. I have never been there. Maybe you have. If I need PROOF that it is there, then I need to go there. If I come back and tell you about it, that is evidence for you. To prove it to you, I need to take you there with me. I have never seen God and I have never seen anything evolve. My mind tells me I will probably never see either. But given the evidence, my heart HOPES to see God. For now, I think I will just watch the thread. Some of these posts are pretty interesting. The human mind is a wonderful thing.

Stacy

You might say evolution is good science based on facts, everybody can understand what that means, too many have no idea what a theory actually is. Don't give ID credibility by mentioning it in the same sentence as a theory.

You might mention well established theories, such as evolution have stood up to the rigors of testing, experimentation, and extensive peer review. No other theory in science, has been put to the test like evolution.

Second, if you were to take the trouble to look into the details of BBT (Big Bang theory), you would find that it does not claim what you claim it claims.

I have dissected your confused comments as politely as I know how

And if it doesn’t seem to make sense, fall back on the belief that human wisdom is folly. (I Corinthians 3:18.)

I tried to get a handle on the ID hypothesis but failed. I had originally thought that the ID model was that the 'designers' created proto-birds roughly 230 million years ago, proto-dogs roughly 40 million years ago, but man roughly 6000 years ago (with no links between 'kinds' of animal groupings or links to modern man). However, I was informed that is is not the ID model and that ID does not actually offer a model or hypothesis. Rather, they simply attempt to poke holes in modern evolutionary biology and accuse everyone of being a Darwinist with a secret handshake. If ID claims to be science they should offer a model or hypothesis rather than "the current understanding of x is incomplete" and thus religious myths are as good an answer as any.

Well, wife wants the machine so I will say goodbye.

Evidence means "what (you) think might be the case"??!!??!! Excuse me, but WTF?

Jesse this really takes the cake. As much as I might want things to mean what I personally want them to mean (a la Humpty Dumpty), that does not make it so.

What you "think might be the case" is a(n) HYPOTHESIS. Then, you test that, and find evidence. Evidence means "that which proves or disproves something". Evidence means the same thing as proof. Evidence = Proof. Is that clear enough?

If I went to Japan, and couldn't speak Japanese, I would at least invest in a dictionary. I would not try to say things that sounded a bit Japanese and expect to be understood. That would be willful ignorance.

If police used your kind of "evidence" we would all of us be in jail.

Boom said (in response to Jesse's comments about ignorance): "If police used your kind of “evidence” we would all of us be in jail."

Jesse IS in a jail of a sort, and it is of his own making. I doubt if he'll ever realize it, because he really likes lazing around in his comfortable little familiar cell. Nothing much is required of him there.

boom.... That is what evidence means to me. What does it mean to you? Whatever it means for you is fine with me. See it the way you want. I'm sorry if I infringed on you in any way.

I came running home from the meeting so I could report the news to you! It really did seem to go very well! What was impressive to me was the amount of Clergy that were there in support of the new standards! A couple of priests and ministers and even a Baptist Preacher! (That shocked me!) I was very pleasantly surprised! The ACLU had a representative there as well.
There were a few people there that made “Heart Felt” statements saying that they wish that God wan’t taken out of school -I have to respect them for being honest and standing up for what they believe - and I got the feeling that those people knew that they ought not to push their religion in the public schools. But most of the people that spoke against the proposed standards were trying to “Preach” - and it was apparent.
There was a plethora of news there - we’ll see how they “Spin” it.

Thanks for all of your help!

Jesse:
I see some here have already responded to my last comment to you. I'm not a scientist and I didn't really want to get involved with this thread, but you seemed to me to be at least a little bit interested in what the science has to say about life, and everything else.

I work for a University and interact closely with scientists (physicists and astronomers mostly. I'm an engineer). The wonder and awe that I see these working scientists exhibit about their work I also share. But, the work they do is not dependent on religious beliefs, although some of them may privately feel spiritual or religious about it. I haven't asked. The point is, those beliefs do not come into play when doing research. The evidence is followed where it takes them without any presuppositions. That is the only way science can be done.

In line with the original topic of this thread, I feel the ID hypothesis would be an absolute show stopper for cosmological and astronomical research, as it would be for biological research. ID operates by selecting something that is not now understood, runs it through a “Design Filter”(TM), and declares it designed. And we learn absolutely nothing. And since this is really a religious designation, it will never be questioned since it would become a tenet of faith.

If you are trying to determine if you can keep your faith, and not be fooled by magical thinking regarding evolution, read Dr. Ken Millers “Finding Darwins God”. Or Dr. Francis Collins “The Language of God”. Both of these guys are top tier scientists working in the field of Evolutionary Biology. And they are both Christians. Now, many here will have a beef with some of the implications these two scientists make about God, but no one disputes that they are able to do their work without invoking a deity that supernaturally pushs and pokes things so they go in some desired direction. For a popular book on evolution that is more science, read “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” by Dr. Sean Carroll.

Carl.... Thank you. That't exactly what I wanted to hear. I have to be very careful what I say here or I'll get strung up again. I once knew an Engineer. Named Tom Blye. He worked for AE Staley Co. in Decatur, Illinois. The man had some of teacher's degree also, that allowed him to teach grade school. He loved children. He was an Electrical/Civil Engineer and a Chemist. Extremely educated. He worked with corn and soybeans to make new products. They actually grew corn inside the building. They had corn plots all over the county. He would set and talk for hours about this stuff. He said it like this: "You can add to the corn plant enhancements. But it will still be corn. If you stop the enhancement, it goes back to its original form". I miss him. These enhancements he talked about align with my Faith. To me, him doing that to corn and such is Intelligent Design. I look into the sky at night and think "I can't be alone", it's too fantastic. I read once that if you put all the parts to a washing machine into a tub and shook it over and over forever. You would never have a washing machine. But, if you call a plumber you will have a washing machine in two hours. When the earth first formed it was lifeless. (I assume) My question was how can a completely dead rock just up and take a breath. And if it did, who saw this happen. Problem is that someone creates a theory of what they think happened to this rock. They write a paper on it. Get it published. Get some followers and the next thing you know it's being taught to my children that this is what happened. Then on the other hand someone sees it start raining and it rains for 40 days and nights. This gets sluffed off as bullshit. I for one do not want either situation taught to my children at school. Things of both these situations should be taught at home untill it is undisputedly proven. The missing link between man and ape (they claim) was found and heralded as genuine (jaw bone). Problem was, they later found another just like it. But it had the rest of the hogs bones with it. Is this true? Is it true the oldest human body (remains/bones)they ever found are only about 8 thousand years old? Well, I have written down the book names you have given. I'll get them and read them. Thank you very much for your help. Tenet of Faith? That's what I mean. They should keep this at home and share it if asked. That's how I got it, I asked. Thanks again and please post some more thoughts. Jesse

ScienceNut.....Here you go. You asked.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
He's able, but will not. We are in this position due to
choice. But in the last day He will stop evil and it will never come up again.

Is He able but not willing?
He is able, and in the last day His will be done.

Is God both able and willing?
Yep

Then whence cometh evil?
Satan is the author.

Is He neither able nor willing?
No

Then why call Him God?
Because He is.

Nigel… Everyone is ignorant of many things. Because I don’t bow to everything you say does not make me ignorant.

— Jesse Hoots

You are obviously ignorant as to what ignorance is.

And I don’t say that to hurt your feelings or slur you in any way.

Folks were talking about “Evidence” here and there. Evidence may mean something else to you, but for ME it means: what I see or what I may think to be the case.

This does not make me right,

it makes me an individual.

The things I see may appear different to you.

You are not ignorant because you see it different than I do. Your mind simply sees it in another way. Evidence says there is a New York City. I have never been there. Maybe you have. If I need PROOF that it is there, then I need to go there. If I come back and tell you about it, that is evidence for you. To prove it to you, I need to take you there with me.

I have never seen God and I have never seen anything evolve.

My mind tells me I will probably never see either.

But given the evidence, my heart HOPES to see God.

For now, I think I will just watch the thread. Some of these posts are pretty interesting. The human mind is a wonderful thing.

However, I was informed that is is not the ID model and that ID does not actually offer a model or hypothesis. Rather, they simply attempt to poke holes in modern evolutionary biology and accuse everyone of being a Darwinist with a secret handshake. If ID claims to be science they should offer a model or hypothesis rather than “the current understanding of x is incomplete” and thus religious myths are as good an answer as any.

— noodlesoup

jesse hoots:

ScienceNut: Then whence cometh evil?

Satan is the author.

If ID claims to be science they should offer a model or hypothesis rather than “the current understanding of x is incomplete” and thus religious myths are as good an answer as any.

Problem is, some of what science teaches, in fact some of the most important things science teaches, just plain flat refute the creationists’ core religious doctrines.

raven:

Problem is, some of what science teaches, in fact some of the most important things science teaches, just plain flat refute the creationists’ core religious doctrines.

That is one thing science has on its side. Reality, the truth. The whole history of mythology has been a steady retreat over the millennia as science proves their all important beliefs wrong. 1. We no longer capture foreigners and cut their hearts out on pyramids to keep the rain falling and the sun moving.

2. Apollo has lost his job of dragging the sun across the sky every day.

IMO, the fundie creos will ultimately do some serious damage to their religion. The Catholics learned that when they torched Bruno and almost torched Galileo. The truth always wins in the very long run. The big question here; will this happen before or after they destroy the American empire? Going to be a close call.

Is it true the oldest human body (remains/bones)they ever found are only about 8 thousand years old?

Fountain of Wisdom (wikipedia): In Hellenistic times, especially during the third century BCE, as Apollo Helios he became identified among Greeks with Helios, god of the sun, and his sister Artemis similarly equated with Selene, goddess of the moon.[1] In Latin texts, however, Joseph Fontenrose declared himself unable to find any conflation of Apollo with Sol among the Augustan poets of the first century, not even in the conjurations of Aeneas and Latinus in Aeneid XII (161-215).[2] Apollo and Helios/Sol remained separate beings in literary and mythological texts until the third century CE.

Jessie Hoots says: "The missing link between man and ape (they claim) was found and heralded as genuine (jaw bone). Problem was, they later found another just like it. But it had the rest of the hogs bones with it. Is this true? Is it true the oldest human body (remains/bones)they ever found are only about 8 thousand years old?"

Thanks for your kind words to me, somewhere back on this thread, Jessie. But I hope you realize by now that Nigel is also sincerely trying to educate, not to put you down. (And he knows a heck of a lot more biology than I do.)

The "missing link" that turned out to be a hog was "Nebraska man." It was found in 1922 and the hypothesis that it was an ancient human was formally retracted in 1927. Since then, literally thousands of non-homo-sapiens hominid fossils or "missing links"-- scientists hate that term, by the way-- have been found, ranging in age from about 30,000 years for the most recent Neanderthals to somewhere around 4-5 million years for the most ancient australopithecines. The oldest actual homo sapiens bones are tens of thousands of years old.

These fossils have been reliably dated by techniques that weren't available in 1922, mostly techniques developed by physicists who were studying radioactive isotopes. (And who didn't have any particular desire to "prove" evolution. Their research just worked out that way.)

Most hominid fossils have been found in Africa, but the more recent species, Neanderthals and homo erectus, have also been found in Europe and Asia. The fossils have been found by teams from many different countries. They have been found by rival researchers who would debunk each others' finds if they could. The fossils have sometimes been found with stone tools and with animal bones that tell us something about how these creatures lived. There is even art work in French caves that's reliably dated to around 30,000 years old!

The bottom line is, there is a huge pile of fossil evidence that points to a common ancestor for chimps and men. And there are more huge piles of evidence from comparative anatomy and biochemical research on proteins and DNA, pointing to the same conclusion. There are even behavioral studies that show apes doing things like using tools that scholars in Darwin's day thought were only done by humans.

So when a creationist comes along and says, "yeah, but somebody misidentified a pig's tooth in 1922, so that disproves evolution," scientists do tend to get pretty snarky. Read what the evolutionary biologists have to say, not just what the creationists claim they say, and mybe you'll understand better why you got a negative reaction here.

And, seriously, take your kids to the zoo. Really study the apes. I did that for my kids, and they're doing the same thing for my grandkids. They don't mind thinking they descended from ancient apes. They love knowing they're related to those fascinating creatures.

Jesse,

I think I see the problem between you and many of your interlocutors here, and if you can bear with me, I will illustrate with an example.

Let's say you and I and a mutual friend go to the mutual friend's house, only to find the door smashed in, and the living room a mess of overturned furniture and broken items. Yu have commented many times here that different people see things differently, and this is the case here. You interpret what you see as the result of a bear from the nearby woods getting into the house. I interpret it as the result of a breakin by a burglar. Our mutual friend insists that it must be his bratty 15 year old son from a previous marriage, who was angry last night at being denied permission to go out with his older friends who drink.

This, I propose, is how religious people think, and where they stop. They look at data, and draw conclusions from their own experience. But this is not how science works. Scientists go a step further. In this case, our mutual friend says there is a simple way to test our theories. He apparently had planned to propose to his girlfriend tonight, and in preperation, had placed on the kitchen counter: a steak to thaw and later be cooked, a bottle of wine, and a diamond necklace. Now we can test our hypotheses. If you are correct and it was a bear, the steak will be gone. If I am correct, the burglar would have taken the necklace. And if our friend is correct, the wine will be gone.

We go into the kitchen, and lo and behold, the steak and necklace are untouched, but the wine is gone. This, in science, is known as confirmatory evidence. When scientists get published in peer-reviewed journals, this is what their writings usually contain: confirmatory evidence of their theory. It is not merely guesswork or idle theorizing or even after-the-fact speculation. You seem to be under the impression that it is. But that is what religious thinkers do. In our hypothetical, were I a religious-type thinker, I might claim that my hypothesis could still be correct because the burglar might have just been thirsty, or hadn't noticed the necklace, or any host of possible after-the-fact rationalizations. But this is not science, and it is poor epistemology, because in almost any circumstances one can, with just a dab of intelligence and a lot of creativity, come up with rationalizations that might be true, and would validate one's hypothesis. Thus, doing so says little about how accurate one's hyothesis is.

The scientific evaluation of our little scenario is that the most reasonable hypothesis is that the intruder was the bratty son, since the evidence so far supported that over the others. This does not make it ironclad, since it is quite possible one of the other hypothesis, or even one not considered, could be correct. Thus, the next steps would be to make yet more predictions based on the bratty-son hypothesis, and see if those are confirmed as well. This is what we mean when we speak of scientific evidence. When you discuss these issues, you need to keep this in mind.

This, I propose, is how religious people think, and where they stop.

— Science Avenger

Jesse:
You're welcome. But I see you have a long way to go. All of your arguments are standard creationists canards. You need to do a little reading and investigating.

Check out the links given you here, and follow up on the points brought up by the working scientists that post here. If you want to argue "teach the controversy" you need to have a lot more background on the subject. I think you'll find out that there is no controversy as far as scientists are concerned.

I mentioned that I work at a University. There is no ID research going on here, nor at any other state college or university that I know of. Even private religious institutions like Baylor and Notre Dame have no problem with evolutionary research being carried out on their campus.

There is over 100 years of progressive discovery in evolution that has been peer-reviewed and rigorously investigated. This makes the Theory of Evolution as much a fact as can be achieved in science.

My question was how can a completely dead rock just up and take a breath. And if it did, who saw this happen. Problem is that someone creates a theory of what they think happened to this rock. They write a paper on it. Get it published. Get some followers and the next thing you know it’s being taught to my children that this is what happened.

Then on the other hand someone sees it start raining and it rains for 40 days and nights. This gets sluffed off as bullshit.

I for one do not want either situation taught to my children at school. Things of both these situations should be taught at home untill it is undisputedly proven.

The missing link between man and ape (they claim) was found and heralded as genuine (jaw bone). Problem was, they later found another just like it. But it had the rest of the hogs bones with it. Is this true? Is it true the oldest human body (remains/bones)they ever found are only about 8 thousand years old?

I read once that if you put all the parts to a washing machine into a tub and shook it over and over forever. You would never have a washing machine. But, if you call a plumber you will have a washing machine in two hours.

I read once that if you put all the parts to a washing machine into a tub and shook it over and over forever. You would never have a washing machine. But, if you call a plumber you will have a washing machine in two hours.

— Jesse Hoots

My question was how can a completely dead rock just up and take a breath.

— Jesse Hoots

And if it did, who saw this happen.

Problem is that someone creates a theory of what they think happened to this rock. They write a paper on it. Get it published.

Get some followers and the next thing you know it’s being taught to my children that this is what happened.

Then on the other hand someone sees it start raining and it rains for 40 days and nights. This gets sluffed off as bullshit.

I for one do not want either situation taught to my children at school.

Things of both these situations should be taught at home untill it is undisputedly proven.

The missing link between man and ape (they claim) was found and heralded as genuine (jaw bone). Problem was, they later found another just like it. But it had the rest of the hogs bones with it. Is this true?

Is it true the oldest human body (remains/bones)they ever found are only about 8 thousand years old?

ScienceNut…..Here you go. You asked. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? He’s able, but will not. We are in this position due to choice. But in the last day He will stop evil and it will never come up again. Is He able but not willing? He is able, and in the last day His will be done. Is God both able and willing? Yep Then whence cometh evil? Satan is the author. Is He neither able nor willing? No Then why call Him God? Because He is.

— Jesse Hoots

... I hope you realize by now that Nigel is also sincerely trying to educate, not to put you down. (And he knows a heck of a lot more biology than I do.)

— Hoary Puccoon

Okay folks....we are starting the revision of the science standards in Texas next week. It will be a battle, in case the fundies come up with a berserk-o claim that I have not heard before, and can't refute, I maybe be posting for some help from PT friends. As all of you are aware, the other side has already made some high profile moves.

...They write a paper on it. Get it published..... Ah. This line suggests that you have a misconception about scientific publications. Let me address this one. Getting a scientific paper published in a journal is not an easy task. Here are some things that are absolutely essential in order to get a submitted research paper sent out for review: * The study itself has to address specific questions that are clearly stated. * All data must be correctly analyzed and interpreted. * The author has to support all assertions, either with his/her own data or by citing previously published research. Any references to other people's work must be properly cited. * The overall writing style has to be clear enough so that other professionals in the author's field can understand it. A paper that is obviously poor will be summarily rejected by the editor. Otherwise, it will be sent to professionals in the field for review. The reviewers make comments, which are sometimes extensive. If the reviewers find serious flaws in the paper, they can -- and will-- take it apart with no mercy. Even if there are only minor concerns, the editor will require the author to revise the paper to address the reviewers' comments. In other words: You can't get a crankish vanity piece published in a reputable scientific journal. Your work has to follow accepted standards of scientific process and evidence before it will be even considered for publication. Writing a paper and getting it published may involve years of research and months of revision. But, because the procedure is so meticulous, scientists and science educators can take peer-reviewed journal articles seriously as sources of information.

JJ - This probably won't help you at all but you said "berserk-o claim "!! There was a gentleman at the Jax. meeting last night that was convinced that the US Supreme Court ruled that teaching "Creationism" in a PS was legal. He mentioned a year - I didn't write it down (Sorry) but it was 1930 something!!?? I had a very hard time controlling my laughter! :)

...They write a paper on it. Get it published.....

Did not say anything about journals. Did not Darwin write down his ideas and publish them? And is now taken as fact because he said so? Who was the Editor? He presented it to what professional? What were the accepted standards of his time?

Did not say anything about journals. Did not Darwin write down his ideas and publish them? And is now taken as fact because he said so? Who was the Editor? He presented it to what professional? What were the accepted standards of his time?

Nigel... Evil is a severe social problem. Very few people are evil. Hitler as an example. If God brought back Hitler, Hitler would most likely be the same even if given the opportunity to change. The book of Revelation says he will not change. It's in Hitler's heart to be evil by choice. I don't know to what degree of ungodliness God will forgive. Between Perfect and Evil is the position you and I are in. Lets say you stomp your neighbor for stealing your lawn mower. That don't make you evil. It does make you ungodly. But to what degree? God knows and your conscience knows. All you need to do is ask and the mower incident goes away. In the garden of Eden, Adam made a choice. He chose ungodliness. We suffer for his choice. God will not interfere till the last day. So we live with evil.

Jesse,

I notice (as did everyone else) that you acknowledged none of the help you have been given toward understanding evolution and science, but chose instead to talk about God, Hitler and Adam. It's a lot to read, so I don't expect much, only an assurance that you will read it with an open mind, and resist the urge to get sidetracked onto God, Hitler, and the philosophical questions that have no bearing on which is the best explanation for the history of life.

Against my better judgment I will take the bait on Adam, though. How many years ago do you think he lived, and do you think that he had biological parents (as most science-literate Christians, and even some creationists do)? Keep in mind that someone must have been the first to have a working knowledge of good and evil, but that does not mean that he had to have been assembled from dust, which as you know is very little pieces of the "rock" of which you are incredulous.

Jesse--

Darwin wrote many books. They're all on-line. His most famous book was The Origin of Species. The first edition came out in 1859. It's still available in print. (And written in plain English, so it's not too hard to read.) Darwin claimed species had evolved, which was not a new idea. A Frenchman named Lamarck had proposed a different theory of evolution around fifty years earlier. (In fact, almost all working scientists-- most of them believing Christians-- had stopped thinking the bible was literally true by the end of the 18th century.)

Charles Darwin's big contribution was that species had evolved by natural selection. That means, living creatures have gradually changed because living things of any one species were all slightly different from each other, and only the fittest survived. Natural selection (which was independently discovered by Alfred Wallace) is now considered one of the basic ideas of modern evolutionary theory, although not the only reason for gradual change over the generations.

What Darwin didn't understand was why living creatures can inherit slight differences. He had a vague idea he called "pangenesis" which scientists no longer accept. A monk called Gregor Mendel independently discovered genes. It wasn't until about the end of World War II that a scientist named Oswald Avery discovered genes were made of DNA. (Most biochemists had thought they were made of protein.) In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick found the double helix structure of DNA, and realized how our inheritance works.

So the Modern Theory of Evolution, or MET, is quite different from the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin. In fact, American scientists virtually never refer to "Darwinism" or "Darwinists." That's a term that is used in the United States only by creationists.

Since the days of Charles Darwin, the theory of evolution has been tested and refined many, many times. At present, the field is developing so fast that book publishers can't keep up with it --and can't afford the rigorous cross-checking and peer review that science requires-- which is why working scientists usually publish in journals, as Julie Stahlhut described.

Given the rigorous testing the theory of evolution has been through, it may not be clear why Chales Darwin is still revered almost 150 years after his book came out, when many of his ideas have been found wrong or incomplete. But if you actually read The Origin of Species from the point of view of a scientist, it's easy to see why. Darwin never says, "my ideas are right, and you've got got accept them." He admits over and over again, places his theory is shaky or inadequate, and makes one suggestion after another of ways other scientists can TEST his theory-- not blindly accept it. For a number of scientists, it kick-started research that became their life's work, and made them famous.

This has happened more than once in science. In 1961, a young, unknown scientist named Marshall Nirenberg announced a finding at an international biochemistry conference that ran counter to established ideas of that time. People in the audience described themselves as-- not thinking Nirenberg was wrong-- but "itching to get back in the lab" and check out his conclusions. By seven years later, Nirenberg's ideas were accepted, and he won a Nobel Prize.

So scientists don't reject ideas that challenge the current orthodoxy. They test them. They don't reject biblical literalism because it challenges "Darwinism." They reject it because they tested it-- and it failed.

hoary puccoon, That was beautifully written. Thank you

Did not say anything about journals. Did not Darwin write down his ideas and publish them?

— Jesse Hoots

And is now taken as fact because he said so?

Who was the Editor? He presented it to what professional? What were the accepted standards of his time?

Nigel… Evil is a severe social problem. Very few people are evil. Hitler as an example. If God brought back Hitler, Hitler would most likely be the same even if given the opportunity to change. The book of Revelation says he will not change. It’s in Hitler’s heart to be evil by choice. I don’t know to what degree of ungodliness God will forgive. Between Perfect and Evil is the position you and I are in. Lets say you stomp your neighbor for stealing your lawn mower. That don’t make you evil. It does make you ungodly. But to what degree? God knows and your conscience knows. All you need to do is ask and the mower incident goes away. In the garden of Eden, Adam made a choice. He chose ungodliness. We suffer for his choice. God will not interfere till the last day. So we live with evil.

— Jesse Hoots

Jesse…here are some very old Q and A’s about God: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not Omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus (341-270 BCE)

— Science Nut

Stacy S. : He mentioned a year - I didn't write it down (Sorry) but it was 1930 something!!?? I had a very hard time controlling my laughter! :)

jesse hoots: In the garden of Eden, Adam made a choice. He chose ungodliness. We suffer for his choice. God will not interfere till the last day. So we live with evil.

Ravilyn - To answer your question ... I don't know. Sorry :( I do know that the whole meeting was recorded on video so the BoE can view it. A reporter asked a great question of one of the "Evolution has Holes" folks - I just hope someone has the fortune to ask the same question to a certain BoE member. --- I'll copy & paste...enjoy! (I'm going to *** the name of the activist because she is not a public official, but the BoE member in question is Donna Callaway)
If you wish, you can access the story from the St.Petersburg Times
----------

“How many of us were taught that Pluto was a planet?” said *** *******, an activist from St. John’s County.

******* said she took exception with the statement included in the standards that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” Asked after the meeting what other fundamental concepts there were, she could not say. (I should note that ID was absolutely CRUSHED at that meeting and for anyone to say that ID is the other theory that should be taught would have looked like a complete fool) ----------
The following is from the Florida Baptist Witness -----------

Callaway states quite clearly that she is going to vote against the new standards because of evolution. She’s apparently not advocating actually teaching intelligent design, the Discovery Institute’s creationist Trojan horse. But she does think that students need to be exposed to “other theories” in some way.

“I agree completely that evolution should be taught with all of the research and study that has occurred. However, I believe it should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origin of life,” Callaway told me.

Jesse hoots thusly.... My question was how can a completely dead rock just up and take a breath. And if it did, who saw this happen. .... Then on the other hand someone sees it start raining and it rains for 40 days and nights. This gets sluffed off as bullshit.

stevaroni:

Jesse hoots thusly.... My question was how can a completely dead rock just up and take a breath. And if it did, who saw this happen. .... Then on the other hand someone sees it start raining and it rains for 40 days and nights. This gets sluffed off as bullshit.

The sticky problem, Jesse, is that all those extinct animals that "nobody saw happen" left their mortal remains, in some places in beds 30 foot deep spanning millions of years, and you can actually go see them today and touch them for yourself. Meanwhile, someone claims to have seen the great flood all right, even written it down, but curiously, this hugest of all calamities seems to have left behind no physical evidence at all. Now just why might that be, Jesse. And, given the two, which would serious people be more likely to toss in the "bullshit" and "not bullshit" categories, as you so charmingly put it?

What God is saying is: "If you want to do it your way, go do it somewhere else" "If you want to do it my way and live with me, then here is my Son. Take it up with him, I give it all over to him to decide" God did not want Lucifer, or anyone else being in or coming into his place and dictating policy. I myself have surrendered to this. I have been given the same choice Adam had. I can choose to be my own god and die, or I can take the other road and possibly survive past this lousy mess I'm in. I spent the most part of my life being defiant to God. Why? Beacause I did not understand why God deserted me before he knew me. Turns out He did know me. I am "Self Centered" "Egotistical" "I have been known to treat my fello man unfairly" In short, I am unworthy to be part of God's situation. In laymans terms Jesus said: Keep your yap shut, know that he is God and I'll see if I can get your dumb ass through the Pearly Gates. This thread IS about choice. I choose to live, if possible. It's in me to survive. If I choose "No God" and say all things just happened by themselves, then I hands down die. I don't think I care for that. I'll take the chance with Jesus. If nothing else, I'll die with a happy thought.

I thought you were going to address the science and not derail the thread into theology, Jesse. I guess you made your choice, didn't you.

Quick, hide behind The Book! There's information coming!

Stanton....If you melted the polar caps, how deep would the water be where you are standing? You and I can stand toe to toe and ask questions of each other all our lives and not answer any of them. I can't prove there was a flood and you can't prove there was not.... ravilyn thought I avoided the question "Who made Satan". Well, sorry but I have no idea. Would be like me asking what's on the other side of the stars I look at at night. All I can think about Satan is that he was a total asshole that screwed up a good thing trying to do it his way. I'll do my best to try and avoid doing the same thing.

Jesse said: Did not Darwin write down his ideas and publish them? And is now taken as fact because he said so?

This thread IS about choice.

— Jesse Hoots

I choose to live, if possible. It’s in me to survive.

If I choose “No God” and say all things just happened by themselves, then I hands down die.

I don’t think I care for that. I’ll take the chance with Jesus. If nothing else, I’ll die with a happy thought.

. . . If you melted the polar caps, how deep would the water be where you are standing?

— Jesse Hoots

You and I can stand toe to toe and ask questions of each other all our lives and not answer any of them.

I can’t prove there was a flood and you can’t prove there was not

ravilyn thought I avoided the question “Who made Satan”. Well, sorry but I have no idea. Would be like me asking what’s on the other side of the stars I look at at night. All I can think about Satan is that he was a total asshole that screwed up a good thing trying to do it his way. I’ll do my best to try and avoid doing the same thing

Satan is the author

— Jesse Hoots #139148

If you actually knew how to use Google, Jesse, rather than playing the part of the arrogant dullard of Christ, you would have realized that the question of how much of the earth would be flooded if the polar icecaps melted has already been answered, in that, if all of the world's ice, including the Arctic Ice Cap, and the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica, sea level would rise by over 250 feet, destroying many of the world's important cities, including Washington D.C., New York City, Shanghai, and Singapore, what with them being near the coastline, and at sea level.

http://askascientist.binghamton.edu/may-jun/02jun05ask.html

jesse hoots: If you melted the polar caps, how deep would the water be where you are standing? You and I can stand toe to toe and ask questions of each other all our lives and not answer any of them. I can't prove there was a flood and you can't prove there was not....

fnxtr.....Let's put you in God's position. First off: You can't die. Your invironment can't hurt or change you. You can move about eternity and space as you please. You are self taught. You can manipulate everything around you. Your ability of science is unmeasurable.....Even you could do the things God did. What would you make and why? Do you think what you create has to answer to you? or should YOU answer to it?.... This thread IS about about theory. It's about the theory of intelligent creation and the theory of evolution. Read the title. I have some books coming that were suggested by another poster. They won't have them for me till next week. I can't wait to get them. Have you heard me insist you go out and buy a King James version? Did you know the early bible was in latin? No-one could read it except the ones high up in the church. They did this for gain I think. Why else? I have four different versions of the Bible. They all say something different. Imagine that. LOL No wonder there are over 250 different churches. It's because each wants their way. I wonder how many Evolutionists' arrive at a thought or theory and then have it thrown aside because it did not fit the STANDARD. I like to think freely, I think we should all have the right to do that.

Given the rigorous testing the theory of evolution has been through, it may not be clear why Chales Darwin is still revered almost 150 years after his book came out, when many of his ideas have been found wrong or incomplete. But if you actually read The Origin of Species from the point of view of a scientist, it’s easy to see why. Darwin never says, “my ideas are right, and you’ve got got accept them.” He admits over and over again, places his theory is shaky or inadequate, and makes one suggestion after another of ways other scientists can TEST his theory– not blindly accept it.

Did you know the early bible was in latin?

jesse hoots: fnxtr.....Let's put you in God's position. First off: You can't die. Your invironment can't hurt or change you. You can move about eternity and space as you please. You are self taught. You can manipulate everything around you. Your ability of science is unmeasurable.....Even you could do the things God did. What would you make and why? Do you think what you create has to answer to you? or should YOU answer to it?....

This thread IS about about theory. It's about the theory of intelligent creation and the theory of evolution. Read the title.

I have some books coming that were suggested by another poster. They won't have them for me till next week. I can't wait to get them. Have you heard me insist you go out and buy a King James version? Did you know the early bible was in latin? No-one could read it except the ones high up in the church. They did this for gain I think. Why else? I have four different versions of the Bible. They all say something different. Imagine that. LOL No wonder there are over 250 different churches. It's because each wants their way. I wonder how many Evolutionists' arrive at a thought or theory and then have it thrown aside because it did not fit the STANDARD. I like to think freely, I think we should all have the right to do that.

Raylin....Artic ice is floating on water? Hell, I even watch the Discovery channel. They drilled down in it and brought up fossils of critters that only lived in warm climates. If the caps melt I suppose the water would just hover? LOL First you say it will not change the level, then you say it will raise it up maybe 300 feet. Which is it? Make up your mind. If it raised it up 300 feet that would really send a bunch of Floridian's srurrying for the mountains. You better go let the GLOBAL WARMING experts know this. And according to them, if the caps melt we will need more than an ARK. And no, I don't believe everything a Christian say's just because they say so. A bunch a guys a long time ago wrote a book about a flood they SAW. They described it as best they could. Now some guy comes along with a theory about the Black Sea and the flood. He didn't see anything, he just theorized. But, for you the theorist is right and the "Eye Witnesses" are wrong. Oh, please!!!

Yes, the Arctic Ice Cap is floating. Ice floats on water because it is less dense than water. And there is no land in the middle of the Arctic Ocean: if you owned a globe and looked at it once in a while, you would known this already.

And yes, there are fossils of tropical and temperate climate organisms in Greenland, that's because of two little things called "Continental Drift," and "climate change," in that over three hundred million years ago, Greenland used to be near the equator, and that around 1 to 2 million years ago, between the last two ice ages, the world climate was warm enough that Greenland had small forests. In fact, Greenland was once warm enough to support a colony of Vikings founded by Erik the Red in the 12th Century.

Eyewitnesses are appreciated in science, Jesse, but, you fail to realize that it is preferable to have more eyewitnesses whenever possible, and that some eyewitnesses are more reliable than other eyewitnesses.

He eventually talks about a curious insect which lays 16 eggs, 15 female and 1 male all within its own shell. They hatch and the son mates with all his sisters and dies inside the shell. The pregnant daughters devour the body of the mother from inside and emerge from the holes they bored by eating.

jesse hoots wrote:

Did you know the early bible was in latin? No-one could read it except the ones high up in the church. They did this for gain I think. Why else?

Oo! Oo! Let me "guess". Could it be that it was written in Latin, not because of some cabalistic hierarchy that wanted to hide the true Word of God from the people, but because in the third century every one in the western world who could read, could read Latin? No. That couldn't possibly be it. Could it be that Classical Latin was the language of literature and culture at the time? No. Not that either. "Obviously" it must have been that vast Catholic Conspiracy. Gee, and I always thought that the early bible had been written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

Jesse: stupid ignorant arrogant stupid ignorant arrogant stupid ignorant arrogant ...

Jesse,

You aren't reading carefully. If the floating Arctic (the northern pole) ice all melts, it will not raise sea levels. (Try it yourself. Put some ice in a full glass of water. Wait for it to melt. The glass will not overflow. This is called an "experiment".) If ice that is currently sitting on land were to melt, it will raise the sea level. How much it raises the sea level depends on which ice is counted: the ice on Greenland, Antarctica (the southern pole), or all the other glaciers. Also, while 300 feet is a lot, and will cover a lot of land that people currently live in, no one will need an Ark to survive (well except maybe some Pacific Islanders), and no "global warming expert" has ever claimed that. But because it will cover a lot of currently valuable land, it's going to cause lots of environmental, economic, and cultural problems. Will we live through it? Of course. Will it be pleasant? Hardly. Will lots of species perish? Of course. Will all life come to an end? Get real.

And by the way... The "bunch of guys" who actually saw the flood didn't write a book. They told their grand kids about it, who told their grand kids, etc, etc. The guys who wrote the book didn't actually see the flood. That's like saying that Adam must have written the book of Genesis, because he was the only one who actually saw the Garden of Eden.

You seem to be equating "theorizing" with "guessing". That's not the way science works. The "hypothesis" about the Black Sea flood started out as a notion (or informed "guess") that someone just thought might be a good idea, because (if it were true) it might explain a lot of the existing evidence we have. Then the scientists said, IF this "hypothesis" is true, THEN we should find thus-and-such kinds of new evidence that we haven't seen yet. THEN they went looking for that evidence. Lo and behold, they actually found some of that expected evidence where they thought it might be. They also found some evidence that they didn't expect to find. Did they ignore that new evidence? No. They changed their "hypothesis" to fit the new data they found. This is called science. Have they "proved" their case yet? I don't know if they have or not, but they're still working on it. It may be shown to be true, it might be shown to be false. But that's science.

Jesse,

Open GOOGLE and then click on Maps and then zoom out. You will see there is no land under the Arctic Ocean. The ice of the Arctic Ocean is floating.

Here is an experiment for you. Get a drink of water. Put some ice in it. The ice must be floating. Measure the level of the liquid water on the side of the glass. Wait for the ice to melt. Did the level of the liquid change with the melting of the ice? All previous experiments have shown the water level remains constant. This is why melting the Arctic Ocean ice will not change see level.

On the GOOGLE Maps, you will also see that Greenland and Antarctica are land masses. This ice is not floating. When the ice on Greenland and Antarctica melt the water flows into the oceans and raises sea level. The ice volume on Greenland can raise sea level by ~21 feet. The ice volume on Antarctica can raise sea level ~228 feet. Together this is ~249 feet. This is a problem for Florida. However, there is not nearly enough water on Earth to flood all land. The highest point on land is 29,029 feet above sea level.

The Bible has factual errors as you have pointed out. The global flood of all land is one of the errors.

Does this make sense? Do you Mark Hausam?

Experiment completed. Empty glass with only an ice cube in it. Ice melted after about 30 minutes. Strange thing happened. There was water at botton glass about 1/4" deep. Hmmmmm I then put an ice cube in a glass and filled it with water. I added an ice cube. Water leveled out. Ice was sticking out of top of water, not much but some. As the ice melted, the overflow went down side of glass. Careful diagnosis of the water on the table told me there must have been water in the ice. Possibilities: 1)There could be water in the ice 2) may have gotten a bad chunk of ice 3) ice may not be totaly water. May be a large amount of trapped air in the ice 4) God tricked me 5) water shrinks as it melts 6) The sphaghetti people planted phony ice in my fridge 7) Water may have condensed on outside of glass......Note: Possibilities were written by my 11 year old. I wrote numbers 4 & 6

rog....Interesting. Yes, we did this. Kinda fun. We did melt a piece of ice in a glass with no water. There was water in it after the ice melted. (of course). Melted ice caused a particular level. Starting with water in the glass only added to the water. Not much though. I know that parts of the caps are floating. Part of one broke off and sank the Titanic. If you are right, I may be able to prove this. Fun stuff. This is Physical science though. Can't tell Al Gore though, would really screw with his movie.

jesse hoots: rog....Interesting. Yes, we did this. Kinda fun. We did melt a piece of ice in a glass with no water. There was water in it after the ice melted. (of course). Melted ice caused a particular level. Starting with water in the glass only added to the water. Not much though. I know that parts of the caps are floating. Part of one broke off and sank the Titanic. If you are right, I may be able to prove this. Fun stuff. This is Physical science though. Can't tell Al Gore though, would really screw with his movie.

I wonder if the land where Noah lived was low lying. I looked it up in my four bibles and it said "The Land" was flooded. One other says earth. Could it be that it only flooded where he was? Noah did not have any way to see more than horizon distance. The world for him may have been small. He may have assumed it was worldwide. Any ideas? Great posts guys!! Thanks

He may have assumed it was worldwide. Any ideas?

jesse hoots: I wonder if the land where Noah lived was low lying. I looked it up in my four bibles and it said "The Land" was flooded. One other says earth. Could it be that it only flooded where he was? Noah did not have any way to see more than horizon distance. The world for him may have been small. He may have assumed it was worldwide. Any ideas? Great posts guys!! Thanks

Hey - I'm in a debate here - http://www.flascience.org/wp/ - Anyone want to help??
At the bottom of the page titled - Those not in favor of good science education, raise your hand.

KL.... I agree

Scott....I was refering to Martin Luther. 16th century Germany. Common language was German. All churches were Catholic. Catholic churches held all bibles. Common folk did not have a bible. If they did, they could not read it . It was in Greek/Latin. The sermons were in Greek/Latin. Martin Luther thought this was terrible. He and some others started translating the Bible into German. The church seen their power slipping away and actually took some of these translators out and cooked them. They caused a separation in the church because of this. People could now read what it said and sure enough, up popped Protestants.

“How many of us were taught that Pluto was a planet?” said *** *******, an activist from St. John’s County.

Water leveled out. Ice was sticking out of top of water, not much but some. As the ice melted, the overflow went down side of glass.

Possibilities: 1)There could be water in the ice 2) may have gotten a bad chunk of ice 3) ice may not be totaly water. May be a large amount of trapped air in the ice

4) God tricked me

5) water shrinks as it melts

6) The sphaghetti people planted phony ice in my fridge

7) Water may have condensed on outside of glass…

…Note: Possibilities were written by my 11 year old. I wrote numbers 4 & 6

Can’t tell Al Gore though, would really screw with his movie.

LOL Henry! :)

Jesse: Was the water warm, cold, or room temperature when you started your ice in a glass experiment? I ask because water is most dense at 4 degrees C (39 F), and expands as it gets colder *or* warmer as it deviates from this temperature. So the water may have expanded a little as it reached room temperature from the starting temperature. This could have caused the overflow you observed. Although this expansion would probably be less than 0.1% of the original volume.

This "ice in a glass" experiment has been done many times, and it always performs as the physics would dictate when done properly. The density of water as a solid, liquid or gas has been very precisely measured, as has the coefficient of expansion of water with change in temperature. So if you are seeing water overflow with your experiment, you've probably not accounted for something.

For more than you'd ever want to know about "water anomalies" check out:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html#M1

You've just noticed that you need to control an experiment for all known "contaminants" in order to interpret the results correctly. Congratulations!

Carl....Water came from spout on refrigerator. May run through a cooler. Not sure. I'll try again later. Also, this is science of which I do appreciate.

Popper's Ghost.....Go play in the street.

Jesse: Excellent! Now you're starting to do science: speculate; collect data; observe that the data does not fit the initial speculation; propose possible explanations for what happened. And you even included your kid. Outstanding.

I wonder how many Evolutionists’ arrive at a thought or theory and then have it thrown aside because it did not fit the STANDARD. I like to think freely, I think we should all have the right to do that.

— Jesse

Jesse,

You seem to be making progress. You see that at least one part
in the scripture, the Noah story, is exaggerated or misinterpreted. Actually looked at a glass of water and ice instead of just arguing what could and could not happen. Your
kid seems to be quite smart. Very good.

Now, Jesse, I want you to think about a dog that did not bark. Sherlock Holmes solves a mystery by noticing a fact overlooked by all others, the dog that did not bark.

Looks like you believe and trust a few people in the world. From your views it appears that they are mostly clergy, evangelical TV/radio, creationist websites etc. They have convinced you that the "evolution is wrong. It is immoral because it denies God. The scientists are delusional to think a rock woke up one day and walked. They believe if you throw the parts of a washing machine in a tub and shake it long enough it will assemble itself into a washing machine. Atheists! Don't forget atheism got us Hitler and Stalin". They have done a good
job of persuading you to believe a line of argument like this.

Now think of the dog that did not bark. If their argument is true, you should see the following headlines in newspapers regularly:

Biologist accused of embezzlement!

State Univ embroiled in grades for sex scandal!

Drug bust in professor's office!

Academic charged with assault and battery!

I am not saying these things never happened. But if you believe
in the claims of the creationists and evangelists, how common
these headlines should be? If these godless, atheistic, immoral, unethical Darwinists are all Hitlers and Stalins in
development, the universities must be dens of corruption rivaling any fleshpot in Cairo. (Is it still Cairo? Has Vegas surpassed Cairo, yet?), worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. But
these headline are rare! Doesn't that require some kind of
explanation? Would you ask your preacher this next time?

Most people, including me, are not smart enough to notice a dog that did not bark. But once our attention is drawn to that fact, we, or at least I, tend to go, "aha! that is curious!". Now that I have drawn your attention to the headlines that are rare, would you re-evaluate the trust you have placed on your
sources? Don't have to answer it publicly, just think about
the question yourself. Don't look at a tree, just at the mirror. Answer the question truthfully to yourself.

Jesse--
Two things I would hope you and your kids learn about science from experimenting with ice cubes in water;

1.) To make sure your results are right, repeat the experiment several times, until you know you're getting consistent results.

2.) As Scott suggested with the measuring cup, it helps to get quantities exact, so you know you're really doing the same experiment each time.

Of course, it's hard to get repetition and measurement for scientists working with fossils, but scientists do it to the extent they can. One example-- when scientists found the skeleton of 3.2 million year old "Lucy" they were amazed that a creature with the brain the size of a chimp appeared to be walking on two legs, pretty much like a modern human. It caused a huge debate in the scientific community, because older scientists had lot of fancy theories that our brains must have developed first. This was a real-life example of evolutionary researchers "arriving at a thought or theory and then having it thrown aside because it did not fit the STANDARD." Except that--

1.) The researchers measured Lucy's leg bones against many examples from modern chimps and humans, and showed her legs were more like ours. And,

2.) Researchers found more fossils of hominids about Lucy's age, and all of the leg bones looked like they came from someone who walked on two legs. A rival team of researchers even found fossilized footprints dating from the same time. (The dates were all measured with techniques looking at the decay of radioactive isotopes that always decay at a known rate.)

So, the young researchers claiming a new theory of how humans evolved from ancient apes by first walking upright and then getting big brains were accepted, and the older, established scientists had to back down.

But, notice-- the young researchers challenged one, specific hypothesis of the older researchers. And they and other people did a LOT of work, measuring and finding more evidence to test their new theory.

Look at how different that is from the creationists who pick one, little detail (somebody misidentified a pig's tooth in Nebraska in 1922) and jump to, "so the entire theory of evolution must be wrong." The creationists get mad when scientists dismiss them with a shrug. But without the hard work of repetition and careful measurement, their conclusions are only worth a shrug.

Henry J: I've heard of species reverting from sexual back to asexual methods of reproduction, but that is one weird way of achieving what amounts (sort of) to the same thing.

Henry J:

“How many of us were taught that Pluto was a planet?” said *** *******, an activist from St. John’s County.

Not to mention a bunch of other stuff that I "learned" in school and had to unlearn later (though some of these examples were probably known to be wrong already but hadn't made it into the textbooks where I was): Pluto, Ceres, etc. got reclassified; fungi are not just plants that lack chlorophyll (they're closer relatives to animals than they are to green plants); protozoa cannot be reasonably called a phylum within the animal kingdom; the highest known atomic number went up from 103 (or 102 or 105 depending on which textbook) to 118 (though 117 is still missing); protons and neutrons are no longer considered fundamental particles; we know about planets around other stars; the dinosaur formerly known as brontosaurus has a new name; planets besides Saturn also have rings; Germany is one country now; educated Europeans already knew the Earth was round (I gather that the issue with Columbus had more to do with size than shape; he underestimated the circumference by quite a lot). Henry

Jesse,

My wife, two children and I are repeating the experiment right now. The water level is at the 2 cups level with four large ice cubes. The ice is floating with about 10% above the liquid water. It is important to look horizontally at the water level for accuracy. I will let you know our results.

Two other important aspects of science are now in play here.
(1) Peer review and
(2) Experiment replication by others.

Thank you for your openness.

Jesse said: I wonder how many Evolutionists’ arrive at a thought or theory and then have it thrown aside because it did not fit the STANDARD. I like to think freely, I think we should all have the right to do that.

Learning doesn’t stop when we leave school.

— KL

Ravilyn Sanders:

Henry J: I've heard of species reverting from sexual back to asexual methods of reproduction, but that is one weird way of achieving what amounts (sort of) to the same thing.

Yes it is quite strange. I read it in Chapter 6, Death before Birth, Book Pandas Thumb by SJ Gould. The species is Acarophenax tribolii. The genus Adactylidium has very similar life cycle. Many hits on the web on the A. tribolii. I am not a biologist so I can't even speculate the difference between this and asexual reproduction. The main thrust of the chapter was to explain why the male/female ratio is 1.0 even for animals like elephant seals, where 80% of the sons would die virgins.

If anyone is worried that the thread had gone off-topic, let's recall that ID can accommodate all the results of the FSM as well as human parthogenesis (including an XX single-handedly giving birth to an XY!). I wonder if Margaret Lofton would think that demanding equal time for a certain human parthenogenesis "theory" would also make the school boarg "the laughingstock of the world." Or would she make an exception for that one?

Frank, that is the fatal flaw of Intelligent Design: "It's Designed that way" is used by its proponents as an excuse to cover up the fact that "It's Designed that way" is not a useful explanation under any scientific circumstance...
Q "Why can the bacterial flagellum function without some of their parts if the whole structure is said to be "irreducibly complex"?"
A "Because It's Designed that way."
Q "Why is the vertebrate immune system said to be "irreducibly complex" when echinoderms have a very similar but less efficient immune system of their own?"
A "Because It's Designed that way."

Jesse,

The water level remained unchanged after the ice melted in our experiment. We covered the measuring cup with plastic wrap to control for evaporation.

Experiments in biological evolution, by way of artificial and natural selection, are all around us. For examples, look at the pets we keep, the food we eat, and the diseases we fear.

Problem between Creationists and Evolutionists may be a social problem. Is no-one in the middle? Just extremists in both directions?

jesse hoots: Problem between Creationists and Evolutionists may be a social problem. Is no-one in the middle? Just extremists in both directions?

jesse hoots: Problem between Creationists and Evolutionists may be a social problem. Is no-one in the middle? Just extremists in both directions?

Stanton...I'm not real sure. I'll have to go see. But I don't think anyone at my church drags babies off into the dark for food or has been burning any witches lately. How did you come up with a reply like that from a simple question?? You may be an extremist. They have pills for that. Go see. Don't fall over your own ego on the way..... I think the fatal flaw of "Intelligent Design" was YOU.

Jesse Hoots thusly.... Problem between Creationists and Evolutionists may be a social problem. Is no-one in the middle? Just extremists in both directions?

Jesse,

Here are a few more questions for you to answer, or evade, as one "extreme" does whenever the question is inconvenient. Recall that I believe in God and accept evolution (including a ~4 billion year history of life and common descent). I do it for 2 reasons: (1) the "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" (Pope John Paul II's words - remember?) of multiple lines of evidence, and (2) I take "thou shalt not bear false witness" seriously. Do you consider me in the "middle"? Or must "middle" include being a Christian, and if so, does the late Pope, who agreed with me about evolution, qualify?

Stevaroni,

To be clear, there is no middle explanation, such as, "a ~4 billion year history of life but no common descent," or "a ~4 billion year history of life, common descent, but 'RM + NS' can't form IC systems." I'm not sure if Jesse is that clued in to the scam, but one tactic of those who are is to bait-and-switch a "middle" philosophy, such as mine, with a middle explanation. By being vague about the particulars, they fool would-be theistic evolutionists, and get them to use ID language (arguments from incredulity, other misleading sound bites) rather than ponder the hard questions.

jesse hoots: Stanton... How did you come up with a reply like that from a simple question??

Jesse Hoots said,

"Problem between Creationists and Evolutionists may be a social problem. Is no-one in the middle? Just extremists in both directions?"

And then things got tense.

But Jesse is completely right that it IS a social problem.

The social problem is that religious groups who insist the bible is literally true are trying to force their sectarian beliefs into public school science classrooms, in spite of the wishes of other taxpaying citizens, and the overwhelming scientific evidence that the bible is NOT literally true. (Although I, personally, would guess that most of the bible does refer to actual, historical events. Is there independent evidence King Solomon was a real person? Yes. Is there independent evidence the world was made 6000 years ago, in 6 days? No.)

The middle ground here is that Jesse is completely free to teach his own children anything he wants in his own home, to attend any church he chooses, and to express his views in any appropriate public forums-- including Panda's Thumb. What he has no right to do is force the doctrine of biblical inerrancy onto other people's children. If Jesse wants to learn why scientists, including a lot of sincere Christians, absolutely reject all forms of creationism, he's free to hash it out with anybody who wants to discuss it. But that's a different issue.

The social problem is that religious groups who insist the bible is literally true...

— hoary puccoon

Yes, I agree that there are two separate issues here.

The scientific issue has to do with whether the claims of creationism are correct on the merits, according to the evidence. Here, there is no ambiguity, and no middle ground. Creationist claims are wrong, period. No equivocation is possible in this determination. The Earth is ~4.6 billion years old, and all species derive from a common ancestor. There was no global flood. These are scientific facts (that is, indicated without exception by overwhelming evidence).

Then we have the social issue: how should those who accept the facts interact with those who not only believe nonsense, but demand that government train other peoples' children to believe the same nonsense? Should the social middle ground be "live and let live" as Hoary Puccoon suggests? Should we compromise on allowing everyone be moderately ignorant - not educated properly at one extreme, but not howlingly stupid at the other?

The political issue is that organized fanaticism is an impressively effective political vehicle. Creationists may be stone ignorant about the facts and incurably dedicated to staying that way, but they're fully committed to the kind of squeaky wheel politics known to work best - and they squeak 24/7 at deafening volume. AND, they call anyone who resists an "extremist" who is "persecuting" them for their faith!

One key technique they use is to force a social polarization, so they can blame their opponents for causing the problems. When they don't hold the keys to power, they ask for "moderation" and "teach the controversy" and "fairness". When they DO hold the keys to power, their suppression of dissent is historically ruthless and brutal. When Jesse or those like him show up on this or any other non-sectarian forum, there's discussion, give and take, exchange of views. When someone from here tries to post to a creationist forum, their post is deleted and they are banned from posting forever. THAT is how creationists use power once they get it. Get church and state in cahoots, and you have an inquisition, or the scientific, social, and intellectual wasteland of the Middle East.

And so we tend to regard the request for "moderation" and "middle ground" with a leery eye. We know from thumpingly routine experience that's the last thing creationists want. We know it's an encoded request for power, and we know how they use power once they get it. A true middle ground requires two sides willing to find it and stay there. Creationists regard that as compromising their faith. For them, the middle ground isn't the goal, it's only a milestone calculated to sound "reasonable", halfway to the REAL goal, which is to use the police power of the State to enforce THEIR religious doctrines and policies.

Bottom line: It takes two to compromise. Creationists cannot and will not compromise; they live in a world of absolutes. This request is mendacious.

jesse hoots: Stanton...I'm not real sure. I'll have to go see. But I don't think anyone at my church drags babies off into the dark for food or has been burning any witches lately. How did you come up with a reply like that from a simple question?? You may be an extremist. They have pills for that. Go see. Don't fall over your own ego on the way..... I think the fatal flaw of "Intelligent Design" was YOU.

Flint, you are absolutely correct that creationists are impossible to compromise with, because what they really want is to force their views on the rest of us.

You didn't represent my position accurately, though. I don't see any way to avoid allowing people to be "moderately ignorant," if that's what they want to do. Legally and constitutionally people have the right to practice their religious faith and to teach their own children their religion, no matter how bizarre it may seem to the rest of us. THAT's the middle ground. They have no right whatsoever to undercut America's system of public education just so they can remain COMFORTABLY ignorant. That's what the creationists are actually doing, and it's illegal and, IMHO, morally repugnant. "Live and let live" has two sides, and I don't see creationists being willing to "let live" any more than you do.

(And, yes, Frank J, I know ID isn't pushing biblical inerrancy right now. But as far as I can tell, ID is nothing but a bunko scheme, so I really don't take whatever specific position they're pushing this phase of the moon very seriously.)

“Live and let live” has two sides, and I don’t see creationists being willing to “let live” any more than you do.

Flint: Given the way evolution is actually taught across US high schools, that erosion is already severe. Yet here's Jesse, saying attempting to defend what's left of this "live and let live" status quo is "extremist." I agree with you that in a contest of competing values, the value of individual religious freedom trumps the value of educated sanity. However, until we have been squashed completely under the thumb of the fundamentalists, we'll remain "extremists". Which is defined as anyone NOT under their thumb.

I think it may require a final effect to solve this. If the creator does come back a wreck this world, then it is solved. If science prevails then we are just as dead. Not that science is bad. It's that science says we each have an utter end. Maybe at our own hand.... My father went into a nursing home about four months ago. He is 85 years old this March. He has extreme dementia. Came on sudden. All his life he kept up his faith in God. All his life I was in his face. What did I gain? Nothing. I wish I could tell him I'm sorry. Down inside that dying body and brain of his is still simple hope. I am ashamed I tried to wreck that hope. All the science in the world can't help him. He never burned any witches and was never pushy in any way. His way can't be taught in a school. I hope my spirit can settle down and teach my children my Dad's way. To set and say the first life on this earth was due to a "supreme being" or "chance chemical arrangement" is stupid, not ignorant, stupid!! Neither case can be proven. My question about possible extremism was answered. I'll go with "Faith" and "Hope". I have no choice other than let the extremists on either side dictate policy.

Flint--

I hadn't thought of trying to "teach facts and logic in churches," but I'm totally in favor, if the church leaders will cooperate. (Maybe a sermon on quote-mining, and "Thou shalt not lie"?)

I don't think you and I have a disagreement here. I wasn't saying it's morally defensible for parents to keep their children ignorant. I was saying the fact that they have a constitutional right to do that in America is already a tolerant position. Bullying public school science teachers into keeping everybody else's children ignorant-- or even "moderately ignorant"-- isn't middle ground. It's a violation of other citizens' constitutional rights.

It’s that science says we each have an utter end.

. To set and say the first life on this earth was due to a “supreme being” or “chance chemical arrangement” is stupid, not ignorant, stupid!! Neither case can be proven

”I have no choice other than let the extremists on either side dictate policy

hoary puccoon.... You and I agree. It is social. And if it is social then opposing arguments should be offered at public schools. This not a contradiction on my part. I personally don't think either should be taught at schools. Neither can be proven. Physical science should be taught I believe. We need that. But not origin of life. You must agree that it's a mess. The fact that one of the two has worked its way into the schools and not the other may be the root problem. I don't want Religion taught in schools. I don't want Evolution taught in schools either. It may be that each side needs to take thier toys and go home. It does not seem that this will ever happen. This struggle will probably go on long after you and I are gone from this earth. Maybe forever. I see no solution.

jesse hoots: To set and say the first life on this earth was due to a "supreme being" or "chance chemical arrangement" is stupid, not ignorant, stupid!! Neither case can be proven.

jesse hoots: hoary puccoon.... You and I agree. It is social. And if it is social then opposing arguments should be offered at public schools. This not a contradiction on my part. I personally don't think either should be taught at schools. Neither can be proven. Physical science should be taught I believe. We need that. But not origin of life. You must agree that it's a mess. The fact that one of the two has worked its way into the schools and not the other may be the root problem. I don't want Religion taught in schools. I don't want Evolution taught in schools either. It may be that each side needs to take thier toys and go home. It does not seem that this will ever happen. This struggle will probably go on long after you and I are gone from this earth. Maybe forever. I see no solution.

In order to recognize the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life, perhaps one must first let go of the idea of special creation and Genesis as revealed truth. If one believes in "poof," then there is no difference. In that case, it may be understandable that people like Jesse confuse the two. Not defensible, but understandable.

Bill Gascoyne: In order to recognize the distinction between the origin of species and the origin of life, perhaps one must first let go of the idea of special creation and Genesis as revealed truth. If one believes in "poof," then there is no difference. In that case, it may be understandable that people like Jesse confuse the two. Not defensible, but understandable.

Flint.... Evolution says we die. Because evolution says life created itself. In whatever way you say. Is science part of that? Useful science is simply useful. We may need a division between (God/ or Evolution), and science. Who, knows? You? I don't....We're beating a dead dog..... Sorry, but I don't need sympathy. I was simply telling a simple story. From my heart, not my brain. From all the posts and discussions we have had here, this one thing you said is the only one that has truly hurt me. You win.

jesse hoots: Flint.... Evolution says we die. Because evolution says life created itself.

Useful science is simply useful. We may need a division between (God/ or Evolution), and science.

Who, knows? You? I don't....We're beating a dead dog..... Sorry, but I don't need sympathy. I was simply telling a simple story. From my heart, not my brain. From all the posts and discussions we have had here, this one thing you said is the only one that has truly hurt me. You win.

Evolution says we die.

Evolution says we die. Because evolution says life created itself.

Evolution says we die.

Looks like to promote your agenda,all you need to do is figure a perfect way to attack the "Spirit" of these Christians. Drive them into the dirt and become "Victorious". Don't let up. Keep the pressure on. Now I know what evil is.

Jesse:

If you think educating Christians is "driving them into the dirt", they you do indeed know what evil is. Just check the nearest mirror. But fortunately, your ignorance knows no bounds. Most Christians welcome knowledge, and have no difficulty understanding evolution's simple and elegant feedback processes. Those who open their minds and learn, are victorious. Those who think knowledge is an "evil agenda" are doomed to suffer, because the most they can aspire to is to *believe* that if they blame knowledge hard enough, they'll feel better.

And you're right: reality never lets up.

Add "many of the people Jesse is arguing with are Christians" to that sizable list of facts he ignores.

Once again, real slow.

We are not attacking Christians
We are not attacking the gods.
We are not against Mom, apple pie, or football.

We are just telling you that you are wrong, and that you have a lot to learn about the subjects you are criticizing, which should come as no surprise given that many brilliant people, over decades, have studied these subjects in far more detail than you ever will. If you equate that with evil, then you reveal an arrogance of monumental proportions.

And if it is social then opposing arguments should be offered at public schools.

— Jesse Hoots

Jesse, I'm so disappointed. I thought you came here to learn. Clearly you don't see that learning about the world helped us to achieve a level of civilization, health care, technology and food production that makes modern life possible, comfortable, clean and safe. If we all approached the world the way you do, none of this would have been possible.

Jesse, say it isn't so!

You're leaving because we hurt your feelings, your "spirit"?

Nah! I'm betting your wife needed the computer again, and kicked you off.

Or your 11-year-old, who on current evidence is about four times as bright as you're likely to ever become (though your ignorance is a remediable condition).

This is the same war that went on in Heaven. God against "Undoers of His Way". You are Legion

Jesse's god opposes knowledge? And gets worshiped for it? Golly, what a petty and mean-spirited god.

"The heathen will roar when the name "Jehovah" is uttered.

jesse hoots: "The heathen will roar when the name "Jehovah" is uttered.

Jesse,

Evolution is useful science (pets, food, health).

Evolution is humble like Jesus.

Stanton....Thank you for proving my statement.

The evidence is now clear: Jesse is ineducable. Somebody hit a nerve around 139494 and he went off the deep end.

Jesse, believe in Jehovah if you want. Nobody cares. As Science Avenger tried to say, no-one is persecuting you, they're just telling you that you need to learn the facts about biology before you go ranting.

Meanwhile, please don't tell people who know better, because it's their job to know, that evolution is just an opinion.

Thank you.

jesse Hoots: Stanton....Thank you for proving my statement.

fnxtr: The evidence is now clear: Jesse is ineducable. Somebody hit a nerve around 139494 and he went off the deep end.

Meanwhile, please don't tell people who know better, because it's their job to know, that evolution is just an opinion. Thank you.

Rog..... The problem you and I my have is exactly what we each think evolution is. May be the same. Let's see. Evolution for me means a biological organism naturaly may change its structure and form given enough time. That's fine with me. I have no problem at all with that. But the very, very, very, very first organism may have had some help. And if it were placed here to start with, that is also fine with me. I just have a problem when someone tells me my idea of how it started is wrong and I am an idiot. And thier answer cannot be disputed even though they can't prove their point either. My problem is not with how life moves around or changes, my problem is how it started. I simply think something brighter than Stanton put it there. If we think an organism can change itself, then what makes us think a greater organism than us could not have come about and evolved into what we call God and this God came here and started it? As far as apes becoming people, I don't consider that reasonable. Some do some don't. I don't, my choice. Far as I can tell and science has proved for me that man appeared about 8 thousand years ago. So my assumption is that they were put here. Why is it I am not allowed to think this? We finished the ice experiment, water did not rise as far as we can tell.

jesse hoots: Rog..... The problem you and I my have is exactly what we each think evolution is. May be the same. Let's see. Evolution for me means a biological organism naturaly may change its structure and form given enough time. That's fine with me. I have no problem at all with that. But the very, very, very, very first organism may have had some help. And if it were placed here to start with, that is also fine with me. I just have a problem when someone tells me my idea of how it started is wrong and I am an idiot. And thier answer cannot be disputed even though they can't prove their point either.

My problem is not with how life moves around or changes, my problem is how it started. I simply think something brighter than Stanton put it there. If we think an organism can change itself, then what makes us think a greater organism than us could not have come about and evolved into what we call God and this God came here and started it?

As far as apes becoming people, I don't consider that reasonable. Some do some don't. I don't, my choice. Far as I can tell and science has proved for me that man appeared about 8 thousand years ago. So my assumption is that they were put here. Why is it I am not allowed to think this?

Somehow I knew you would get me. No way you will give up untill I bow to you, Is there? You need a hobby.

Jesse: I just have a problem when someone tells me my idea of how it started is wrong and I am an idiot. And their answer cannot be disputed even though they can’t prove their point either.

As far as apes becoming people, I don’t consider that reasonable. Some do some don’t. I don’t, my choice. Far as I can tell and science has proved for me that man appeared about 8 thousand years ago. So my assumption is that they were put here.

Why is it I am not allowed to think this?

We finished the ice experiment, water did not rise as far as we can tell.

stevaroni....Fair enough....I read the information from the links you sent....Interesting. They may have dug up Adam himself. I have read about carbon-dating. They say it does not work very well when you try to date something that is fairly new. 9 thousand years ago is considered new in this type of test. So, given this info I would say the Creator brought people to this planet somewhere between 8 and 10 thousand years ago..... The humanlike or apelike remains they found from 5 million years ago have no bearing on the later fellow they found on the beach. They do have a bearing on Adam&Eve. Think of this for a second. Adam&Eve were basically animals. They were not self-aware. There were others also, but not in the garden. The bible says humans were created in the same fashion as the animals (look it up). It really says this. It says man was created in the image of God. Think for a second. What is the image of God? Not the body as Christians usually think (if not always), but in mind. He may have given them intellect. They may have already had the body as could be the case of prehistoric man or apelike critters. They may have been a totally different species. Also, Adam&Eve were tenders of the garden. Why would they need to tend it? You see, these are the things I wonder about. I ask myself questions like this all the time. But to make assumptions because we can't prove our findings seems unfair to ourselves. I'm not deluding myself, I'm seeking answers. Oh, for me, hardheaded keeps me thinking. Thanks for the great post!! Now here comes, I read it in a book, Stanton. :)

Jesse,

I think that part of the problem is that you see evolution in overly negative light. But it contains large amount of beautiful stories.

An example: It's been found that when there's a big extinction, big and mighty organisms are the ones that are hit harder. The ones who survive to populate the Earth again (after major catastrophes), are often small and seemingly insignificant creatures - doesn't that sound awfully like a certain story about meek people?

You seem to be dead-set against the ideas that your ancestors were apes. But in today's America, there are people whose ancestors were SLAVE-HOLDERS, and those ancestors didn't even live that long ago. Noone is denying that. And noone considers it terrible, because, well, we don't choose our ancestors. We can't.

Allow me to ask you a simple question - what is WRONG with the idea of shared ancestry with other great apes? Would it make people any less special or wondrous? Would it make the APES any less special or wondrous? Should people feel offended by the idea? Should apes? I can just imagine a chimpanzee denying that he could have ANYTHING in common with those naked brutes and barbarians who put chimps in cages and experiment on them.

When you are confronted with an idea that goes against your instinct (and science contains many such ideas), the proper response is to examine the evidence.
So let's start with that. What evidence for common ancestry of humans and apes did you see or hear about? I won't offer any at this time (I'm just a layman, but I could probaly find some), as I am interested in what evidence have YOU personally seen or heard about, and what is your opinion about them. Then, we can either introduce further evidence or talk about the evidence you already know.

Evidence AGAINST the common descent, if you have any you consider convincing, would be also nice to have.

This thread IS about about theory. It’s about the theory of intelligent creation and the theory of evolution.

— Jesse Hoots

. . . Did you know the early bible was in latin?

No-one could read it except the ones high up in the church. They did this for gain I think. Why else? I have four different versions of the Bible. They all say something different. Imagine that.

LOL No wonder there are over 250 different churches. It’s because each wants their way. I wonder how many Evolutionists’ arrive at a thought or theory and then have it thrown aside because it did not fit the STANDARD.

I like to think freely, I think we should all have the right to do that.

I have read about carbon-dating. They say it does not work very well when you try to date something that is fairly new. 9 thousand years ago is considered new in this type of test. So, given this info I would say the Creator brought people to this planet somewhere between 8 and 10 thousand years ago.

— Jesse Hoots

What is the image of God? Not the body as Christians usually think (if not always), but in mind.

— Jesse Hoots

. . . Artic ice is floating on water? Hell, I even watch the Discovery channel. They drilled down in it and brought up fossils of critters that only lived in warm climates.

— Jesse Hoots

If the caps melt I suppose the water would just hover?

LOL First you say it will not change the level, then you say it will raise it up maybe 300 feet. Which is it? Make up your mind.

If it raised it up 300 feet that would really send a bunch of Floridian’s srurrying for the mountains. You better go let the GLOBAL WARMING experts know this. And according to them, if the caps melt we will need more than an ARK.

And no, I don’t believe everything a Christian say’s just because they say so. A bunch a guys a long time ago wrote a book about a flood they SAW. They described it as best they could.

Now some guy comes along with a theory about the Black Sea and the flood. He didn’t see anything, he just theorized.

But, for you the theorist is right and the “Eye Witnesses” are wrong. Oh, please!!!

. . .I was refering to Martin Luther. 16th century Germany.

— Jesse Hoots

Common language was German. All churches were Catholic. Catholic churches held all bibles. Common folk did not have a bible. If they did, they could not read it . It was in Greek/Latin.

The sermons were in Greek/Latin. Martin Luther thought this was terrible. He and some others started translating the Bible into German. The church seen their power slipping away and actually took some of these translators out and cooked them. They caused a separation in the church because of this. People could now read what it said and sure enough, up popped Protestants.

Popper’s Ghost…..Go play in the street.

— Jesse Hoots

Would you prefer Creationists to drag this country back into the Dark Ages where people were free to torture and murder people suspected of being witches, or when parents were free to let their children starve to death?

— Stanton

Jesse,

You said above, "Evolution for me means a biological organism naturaly may change its structure and form given enough time. That’s fine with me. I have no problem at all with that. But the very, very, very, very first organism may have had some help."

Just out of curiousity, would you agree with the following statement, written in, I believe, 1863, by a Victorian gentleman trained as a clergyman?

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having originally been breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

But I don’t think anyone at my church drags babies off into the dark for food or has been burning any witches lately.

— Jesse Hoots

How did you come up with a reply like that from a simple question??

You may be an extremist.

They have pills for that. Go see.

Don’t fall over your own ego on the way….. I think the fatal flaw of “Intelligent Design” was YOU.

I think it may require a final effect to solve this. If the creator does come back a wreck this world, then it is solved.

— Jesse Hoots

If science prevails then we are just as dead.

Not that science is bad. It’s that science says we each have an utter end.

Maybe at our own hand….

My father went into a nursing home about four months ago. He is 85 years old this March. He has extreme dementia. Came on sudden. All his life he kept up his faith in God. All his life I was in his face. What did I gain? Nothing. I wish I could tell him I’m sorry. Down inside that dying body and brain of his is still simple hope. I am ashamed I tried to wreck that hope.

All the science in the world can’t help him.

He never burned any witches and was never pushy in any way. His way can’t be taught in a school. I hope my spirit can settle down and teach my children my Dad’s way. To set and say the first life on this earth was due to a “supreme being” or “chance chemical arrangement” is stupid, not ignorant, stupid!! Neither case can be proven.

My question about possible extremism was answered. I’ll go with “Faith” and “Hope”. I have no choice other than let the extremists on either side dictate policy.

And why do you consider people who support good science to be extremists?

— Nigel D

hoary puccoon…. You and I agree. It is social. And if it is social then opposing arguments should be offered at public schools.

— Jesse Hoots

This not a contradiction on my part. I personally don’t think either should be taught at schools. Neither can be proven.

Physical science should be taught I believe. We need that.

But not origin of life. You must agree that it’s a mess.

The fact that one of the two has worked its way into the schools and not the other may be the root problem.

I don’t want Religion taught in schools. I don’t want Evolution taught in schools either.

It may be that each side needs to take thier toys and go home. It does not seem that this will ever happen. This struggle will probably go on long after you and I are gone from this earth. Maybe forever. I see no solution.

Newsflash: Evolutionary Biology describes how life changes with each passing generation. Abiogenesis is the science that studies how life arose in the first place. If you actually were informed, you would have already have known this.

— Stanton

. . . Evolution says we die.

— Jesse Hoots

Because evolution says life created itself. In whatever way you say.

Is science part of that?

Useful science is simply useful.

We may need a division between (God/ or Evolution), and science.

Who, knows? You?

I don’t….We’re beating a dead dog….

Sorry, but I don’t need sympathy. I was simply telling a simple story. From my heart, not my brain.

From all the posts and discussions we have had here, this one thing you said is the only one that has truly hurt me. You win.

Nigel D:

Newsflash: Evolutionary Biology describes how life changes with each passing generation. Abiogenesis is the science that studies how life arose in the first place. If you actually were informed, you would have already have known this.

— Stanton

Stanton, Jesse would know this if he had done no more than read some of the preceding comments in this thread. A prime example of willful ignorance.

Evolution for me means a biological organism naturaly may change its structure and form given enough time. That’s fine with me. I have no problem at all with that. But the very, very, very, very first organism may have had some help.

Jesse, I sympathize about your worries over your father. My Dad is also over 80 and has at some times seemed to have been losing it. I can understand how this might make you feel bad, especially if it seems to you that you now owe him something which you can never repay.

But this discussion board is NOT your father. Many of the people here are actually trying their darnedest (probably against the odds, but because they are such decent folks they do it anyhow) to bring you some insight into what science, evolution, abiogenesis, theology, geology, cosmology, biology ... in fact is! My guess is that they do this also because at some points in time and in some of your posts you have come across as a person who is honestly seeking answers. At other times, though, I'm sorry but you really do come across as either someone with a severe mental block, for some reason, against accepting unwelcome insights, or a total and utter fake -- in other words, a troll who is only here to waste "the other camp's" time, energy and wit. It might also help your image a little if you tried a bit harder to keep to one subject at a time, instead of constantly changing, and to use instead of abuse logic.

Now, I am not a scientist. I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist. I once tried but failed to hang out with Jehova's Witnesses, while I thought they made some sense. (It still makes me blush how I abused precisely the same kind of angstful, heartwringing, kind, worried and gentle caring for spreading actual knowledge of actual, testable facts that you have been receiving here, from my old, retired Biology teacher at that time, who was then also over 80!) I am not even an engineer, designer or architect. In fact -- just between the two of us, right ;-)? -- I am not An American!

Still, let me tell you, if you will, that when you state things like:

jesse hoots: Looks like to promote your agenda,all you need to do is figure a perfect way to attack the "Spirit" of these Christians. Drive them into the dirt and become "Victorious". Don't let up. Keep the pressure on. Now I know what evil is.

it speaks volumes to me. Either you are badly hung up on guilt, which you project onto anyone else, or you are abusing others by trying to raise un-called-for guilt in their minds, acting from some "secret" agenda or perhaps script -- or maybe both. This is what I make of your performance here so far. You are not only losing this debate, pretty badly, YOU ARE LOSING IT!

Now take five deep breaths. Think of your children. Think of your spouse. Think of the beautiful birds out there, and the curious insects and the pretty trees, and be thankful and wondrous about these things for a little while.

Then take a good look at what you have posted here for the last week or so, and at the many helpful and polite responses even to some of your most inflammatory remarks. Then go and take a good look in the mirror, and tell yourself that your mission here has been one of truth.

If you can still believe that, go see a shrink. Seriously.

Torbjorn Larsson, OM ..... Excellent!!

Any purely religious folks out there with a position??

jesse hoots: Any purely religious folks out there with a position??

Sure. They are legio. :-) A scientifically tenable position? That, I don't know.

No, but seriously, AIUI, religion and science should be seen as complementary. If there is any overlap at all, it wasn't done right. Religion is by definition that which cannot be proven or understood but must rely, instead and completely, on faith. That's what it's all about, yes?

And you have already met at least one scientist here who claims to be also an Xian.

So by all means, teach about religions (plural!) in social sciences class, history, psychology, consumer awareness class, at home, in Sunday School or whatever -- but most emphatically not as if it were science, in bioscience class!

Any purely religious folks out there with a position??

Ok...Let me rephrase...Anyone who is totally on the side of the "Holy Bible" King James. A person who considers nothing else.

Jon Fleming... Could you tell me a little more about how "God wrote the Rocks" ?? Your opinion would be fine. Not someone else's opinion, Yours.

Looks like to promote your agenda,all you need to do is figure a perfect way to attack the “Spirit” of these Christians.

— Jesse Hoots

Drive them into the dirt and become “Victorious”.

Don’t let up. Keep the pressure on.

Now I know what evil is.

This is the same war that went on in Heaven. God against “Undoers of His Way”. You are Legion

— Jesse Hoots

The heathen will roar when the name “Jehovah” is uttered.

— Jesse Hoots

Stanton….Thank you for proving my statement.

— Jesse Hoots

The heathen will roar when the name “Jehovah” is uttered.

. . . Evolution for me means a biological organism naturaly may change its structure and form given enough time.

— Jesse Hoots

That’s fine with me. I have no problem at all with that. But the very, very, very, very first organism may have had some help.

And if it were placed here to start with, that is also fine with me. I just have a problem when someone tells me my idea of how it started is wrong and I am an idiot.

And thier answer cannot be disputed even though they can’t prove their point either.

My problem is not with how life moves around or changes, my problem is how it started.

I simply think something brighter than Stanton put it there.

If we think an organism can change itself, then what makes us think a greater organism than us could not have come about and evolved into what we call God and this God came here and started it?

As far as apes becoming people, I don’t consider that reasonable.

Some do some don’t. I don’t, my choice.

Far as I can tell and science has proved for me that man appeared about 8 thousand years ago.

So my assumption is that they were put here.

Why is it I am not allowed to think this?

We finished the ice experiment, water did not rise as far as we can tell.

Jesse revealingly asked: Ok…Let me rephrase…Anyone who is totally on the side of the “Holy Bible” King James. A person who considers nothing else.

Ok…Let me rephrase…Anyone who is totally on the side of the “Holy Bible” King James. A person who considers nothing else.

Richard Simons:

Ok…Let me rephrase…Anyone who is totally on the side of the “Holy Bible” King James. A person who considers nothing else.

Did you think before you wrote this? Surely any honest person with two neurons to rub together will consider more than one source when thinking about any issue? And why the KJV in particular when it is known to have mistakes in the translation (e.g. the little foxes in the vinyards)?

Anyone who is totally on the side of the “Holy Bible” King James. A person who considers nothing else.

Could you tell me a little more about how “God wrote the Rocks” ??

Ok…Let me rephrase…Anyone who is totally on the side of the “Holy Bible” King James. A person who considers nothing else.

— Jesse Hoots

Nigel...Legion are cast out angels. Cast into this world from Heaven. You may be one, and if not, you are definitely in league with them. You are a ranting demon. You go into Holy scripture (of which you know nothing about) and pick out a phrase and try and use it as a tool. I have tried to get responses from True Christians. Not people straddling the fence. They obviously have no interest in your worldly gibberish. They obviously have better things to do. You are one-sided unthinking people who can only believe what they see. And when you do see it, you want to take it apart and give it your own useless meaning. Lucifer is your God, and he has helped you dig a hole so deep for yourselves you will never get out. In short, everything about your heathen asses SUCK !! Evolutionist Bullshit.... Have a nice day.

jesse hoots: Nigel...Legion are cast out angels. Cast into this world from Heaven. You may be one, and if not, you are definitely in league with them. You are a ranting demon. [snip] Lucifer is your God, and he has helped you dig a hole so deep for yourselves you will never get out. [snip] Have a nice day.

Jesse, I believe that these days many fundamentalists feel none too comfy with the KJV. No, not because it's the single worst translation ever, filled with errors, mistranslations, post-hoc political justifications and misinterpretations, but because....wait for it.... King James I was a teensy weensy bit of a homo! Seriously, there's a huge movement to stop using KJV after all these years, based NOT on the facts of the original text, but on the sexuality of the guy who commissioned it. Holy Word indeed....

jesse hoots: Nigel...Legion are cast out angels. Cast into this world from Heaven. You may be one, and if not, you are definitely in league with them. You are a ranting demon. You go into Holy scripture (of which you know nothing about) and pick out a phrase and try and use it as a tool. I have tried to get responses from True Christians. Not people straddling the fence. They obviously have no interest in your worldly gibberish. They obviously have better things to do. You are one-sided unthinking people who can only believe what they see. And when you do see it, you want to take it apart and give it your own useless meaning. Lucifer is your God, and he has helped you dig a hole so deep for yourselves you will never get out. In short, everything about your heathen asses SUCK !! Evolutionist Bullshit.... Have a nice day.

1 John 4:20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Stanton, might John 4:20 be interpreted to refer (by extension) to science?

I.e. that which is demonstrable must be believed before one can move on to believing that which is not demonstrable? Just wondering...

Any theologians care to examine that one, since I'm too lazy?

Sorry for the length of the following comment, but it's important enough to quote in full.

Jesse, you are not doing God a service here, and I say that as a deeply committed Christian and as a professional biologist. You would do well to listen to Augustine (who was a father of the Church long before the KJV was ever written).

"Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

From The Literal Meaning of Genesis, written circa 400 AD.

boom: Stanton, might John 4:20 be interpreted to refer (by extension) to science? I.e. that which is demonstrable must be believed before one can move on to believing that which is not demonstrable? Just wondering... Any theologians care to examine that one, since I'm too lazy?

gabriel: Jesse, you are not doing God a service here, and I say that as a deeply committed Christian and as a professional biologist. You would do well to listen to Augustine (who was a father of the Church long before the KJV was ever written).

Nigel…Legion are cast out angels. Cast into this world from Heaven. You may be one, and if not, you are definitely in league with them. You are a ranting demon. You go into Holy scripture (of which you know nothing about) and pick out a phrase and try and use it as a tool. I have tried to get responses from True Christians. Not people straddling the fence. They obviously have no interest in your worldly gibberish. They obviously have better things to do. You are one-sided unthinking people who can only believe what they see. And when you do see it, you want to take it apart and give it your own useless meaning. Lucifer is your God, and he has helped you dig a hole so deep for yourselves you will never get out. In short, everything about your heathen asses SUCK !! Evolutionist Bullshit…. Have a nice day.

Technically speaking, St Augustine was a father of the Church long before the English were speaking English.

gabriel:

Technically speaking, St Augustine was a father of the Church long before the English were speaking English.

Indeed. I once recall hearing of some preacher espousing "if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me." Hard to know where to start with that one.

I wonder if that same preacher also thought that Moses had horns, too.

gabriel:

I wonder if that same preacher also thought that Moses had horns, too.

Not likely - Jerome's Vulgate mistranslation of Exodus 34:30 is not in the KJV, as far as I know.

I have read about carbon-dating. They say it does not work very well when you try to date something that is fairly new. 9 thousand years ago is considered new in this type of test.

I would say the Creator brought people to this planet somewhere between 8 and 10 thousand years ago... The humanlike or apelike remains they found from 5 million years ago have no bearing on the later fellow they found on the beach. They do have a bearing on Adam&Eve. Think of this for a second. Adam&Eve were basically animals. They were not self-aware.

What is the image of God? Not the body as Christians usually think (if not always), but in mind. He may have given them intellect.

Somehow I knew you would get me. No way you will give up untill I bow to you, Is there? You need a hobby.

— Jesse Hoots

. . . They may have dug up Adam himself.

— Jesse Hoots

I have read about carbon-dating. They say it does not work very well when you try to date something that is fairly new. 9 thousand years ago is considered new in this type of test. So, given this info I would say the Creator brought people to this planet somewhere between 8 and 10 thousand years ago….

The humanlike or apelike remains they found from 5 million years ago have no bearing on the later fellow they found on the beach.

They do have a bearing on Adam&Eve.

Think of this for a second. Adam&Eve were basically animals. They were not self-aware. There were others also, but not in the garden. The bible says humans were created in the same fashion as the animals (look it up). It really says this.

It says man was created in the image of God. Think for a second. What is the image of God? Not the body as Christians usually think (if not always), but in mind.

He may have given them intellect.

They may have already had the body as could be the case of prehistoric man or apelike critters. They may have been a totally different species.

Also, Adam&Eve were tenders of the garden. Why would they need to tend it? You see, these are the things I wonder about. I ask myself questions like this all the time. But to make assumptions because we can’t prove our findings seems unfair to ourselves. I’m not deluding myself, I’m seeking answers.

I have tried to get responses from True Christians. Not people straddling the fence.

— Jesse Hoots

As it happens, the entire global human population is descended from a single female ancestor who lived about 200,000 years ago. It also happens that the entire global population is also descended from a single male ancestor who lived about 84,000 years later.

— Nigel D

Richard Simons [comment #139671 on January 8, 2008 8:03 PM]: I think Jesse could be a fraud. He came to this blog with an almost total ignorance of biology in general and evolution in particular, yet felt he had the wherewithal to attack a theory he clearly did not comprehend. People tried to correct him but his mind seemed completely closed on the topic. He then posted various garbled nonsense including on the effects of global warming, about pig fossils and the reliability of carbon-dating. Again, people tried to politely correct him and asked for his source of information but he failed to show any sign of seeing these posts. Throughout he has failed to give reasons for his apparent beliefs. Then in his last post he seemed to go completely off the rails in a caricature of a bonkers fundamentalist, accusing people who accept the theory of evolution as being the devil's disciples (presumably also including the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and several thousand US clergymen who have signed a statement saying that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the vast diversity of life on Earth). There was also the complaint of not getting any response from 'True Christians', an expression I've only seen previously in spoofs. As in the same post he rants about imagined ranting by someone who, as far as I can see, has been calm throughout, I wonder if all along he has been pulling our chains.

A similar thought has actually struck me. As soon as I saw Jesse's first appearance here, it screamed to me, FAKE, LIES! His multiple personalities, rapidly changing moods and sudden outbursts of aggression, depression and suicide hints, may be signs of a deeply disturbed soul, or of a semi-skilled troll, perhaps several working as a team.

In spite of his inflation of this thread to what, 400? posts, Brown-motioning all over the board, he hasn't really accomplished anything much, has he -- except to rub the Polk School Board's noses in their humbling defeat.

So how about this for an alternative hypothesis: Jesse is not a simple carpenter (note the possibly pretentious similarity to JC) hammering with his trusted old Bible, but rather one of the legion of Angelini fallen from FSM and sent out to do His noodly work on Earth? It might even fit the known facts better...

Rrr: a semi-skilled troll, perhaps several working as a team.

Richard Simons and Rrr,

I'm usually the first around here to suspect someone of being a closet "evolutionist," be it the professional IDers who think the "masses" can't handle the truth, or the trolls whose real goal is to make creationists look stupid, ignorant or just plain obnoxious. But I admit still being unsure about Jesse.

C'mon Jesse, if you really don't want to "rub the Polk School Board’s noses in their humbling defeat," you need a different approach.

I’m guessing it’s because his self-imposed ignorance is so stupefyingly powerful that he does not know how to spell “wikipedia.org” or “google.com”, let alone use either site.

— Stanton

Abigenesis is an exciting field too which we could ponder at length. But we must leave to the biologists and their science to work out which field is which and where a theory is applicable or not. Otherwise we have “Evolution, u r doing it rong”.

— Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Any purely religious folks out there with a position??

— Jesse Hoots

Ok…Let me rephrase…Anyone who is totally on the side of the “Holy Bible” King James. A person who considers nothing else.

— Jesse Hoots

Nigel…Legion are cast out angels.

Cast into this world from Heaven.

You may be one,

and if not, you are definitely in league with them.

You are a ranting demon.

You go into Holy scripture (of which you know nothing about)

and pick out a phrase and try and use it as a tool.

I have tried to get responses from True Christians.

Not people straddling the fence.

They obviously have no interest in your worldly gibberish.

They obviously have better things to do.

You are one-sided unthinking people who can only believe what they see.

And when you do see it, you want to take it apart and give it your own useless meaning.

Lucifer is your God,

and he has helped you dig a hole so deep for yourselves you will never get out. In short, everything about your heathen asses SUCK !! Evolutionist Bullshit…. Have a nice day.

Unless he reads further and understands it (In which case I have a bridge to sell you) Jesse will misinterpret your statement. You are referring to purely matrilineal and patrilineal lineages, respectively. From a man and woman who were not alone, but part of population, and whose identities change from time to time.

— Frank J

Nigel--

Much as I, personally, loathe having a strong point undercut by a nitpicker, I can't resist pointing out that the "30,000 year-old cave paintings at Lascaux" are actually "only" (!) about 17,000 years old. The horse mural at nearby Pech Merle is reliably dated to 24,700 years old, give or take three hundred years, and cave art at Chauvet cave has been dated around 35,000 years old. Lascaux and Chauvet are not open to the public, but last I heard, they still take small groups through Pech Merle.

And while we're on the paleolithic era of Southwest France, a nearly complete skeleton of an arthritic male Neanderthal was found in a cave at La-Chappelle-aux-Saintes. (Not too far from either Lascaux or Pech Merle.) He had apparently been cared for by his group, and given a deliberate burial when he died. The most careful, recent analysis indicates the skeleton is 60,000 years old. He's nicknamed, "the Old Man of La Chappelle." Old Man, indeed. So much for "no human remains over 8000 years old."

"Thesis" ..... Thank you.

Fence? There’s a fence now?

— Nigel D

Nigel,

I will be writing you in as my candidate for president:)

rog: Nigel, I will be writing you in as my candidate for president:)

jesse hoots: Nigel...Legion are cast out angels. Cast into this world from Heaven. You may be one, and if not, you are definitely in league with them. You are a ranting demon. You go into Holy scripture (of which you know nothing about) and pick out a phrase and try and use it as a tool. I have tried to get responses from True Christians. Not people straddling the fence. They obviously have no interest in your worldly gibberish. They obviously have better things to do. You are one-sided unthinking people who can only believe what they see. And when you do see it, you want to take it apart and give it your own useless meaning. Lucifer is your God, and he has helped you dig a hole so deep for yourselves you will never get out. In short, everything about your heathen asses SUCK !! Evolutionist Bullshit.... Have a nice day.

Much as I, personally, loathe having a strong point undercut by a nitpicker, I can’t resist pointing out that the “30,000 year-old cave paintings at Lascaux” are actually “only” (!) about 17,000 years old. The horse mural at nearby Pech Merle is reliably dated to 24,700 years old, give or take three hundred years, and cave art at Chauvet cave has been dated around 35,000 years old. Lascaux and Chauvet are not open to the public, but last I heard, they still take small groups through Pech Merle.

— Hoary Puccoon

Nigel, I will be writing you in as my candidate for president:)

— rog

What about Ralph Wiggum?

— Stanton

Anyone who thinks it's reasonable to "teach the controversy" should be forced to read this thread. THIS is what a civil discussion with a creationist actually looks like. (And anyone who thinks Jesse is just an extreme case should be forced to read FL, Bach, and Born Again.)

The discussions always start with some variation on "I have a simple question" and always end with some variation on "You're going to burn in HELL!!!!" Which is not a message most parents, even devout ones, want their children to hear in science class.

(And anyone who thinks Jesse is just an extreme case should be forced to read FL, Bach, and Born Again.)

Jesse Hoots said Lucifer is your God, and he has helped you dig a hole so deep for yourselves you will never get out.

Richard Simons:

Nigel…Legion are cast out angels. Cast into this world from Heaven. You may be one, and if not, you are definitely in league with them. You are a ranting demon. You go into Holy scripture (of which you know nothing about) and pick out a phrase and try and use it as a tool. I have tried to get responses from True Christians. Not people straddling the fence. They obviously have no interest in your worldly gibberish. They obviously have better things to do. You are one-sided unthinking people who can only believe what they see. And when you do see it, you want to take it apart and give it your own useless meaning. Lucifer is your God, and he has helped you dig a hole so deep for yourselves you will never get out. In short, everything about your heathen asses SUCK !! Evolutionist Bullshit…. Have a nice day.

I think Jesse could be a fraud. He came to this blog with an almost total ignorance of biology in general and evolution in particular, yet felt he had the wherewithal to attack a theory he clearly did not comprehend. People tried to correct him but his mind seemed completely closed on the topic. He then posted various garbled nonsense including on the effects of global warming, about pig fossils and the reliability of carbon-dating. Again, people tried to politely correct him and asked for his source of information but he failed to show any sign of seeing these posts. Throughout he has failed to give reasons for his apparent beliefs. Then in his last post he seemed to go completely off the rails in a caricature of a bonkers fundamentalist, accusing people who accept the theory of evolution as being the devil's disciples (presumably also including the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and several thousand US clergymen who have signed a statement saying that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the vast diversity of life on Earth). There was also the complaint of not getting any response from 'True Christians', an expression I've only seen previously in spoofs. As in the same post he rants about imagined ranting by someone who, as far as I can see, has been calm throughout, I wonder if all along he has been pulling our chains.

Ravilyn - From the bottom of my heart ... Thank you!!! That guy is raising my blood pressure - Aauurrgghh!

Also, I don't know how pertinent to this conversation this is, but after re-reading Richard's comments - I remembered something I wanted to ask about in this forum. Since I've moved to Florida, I've noticed that a lot of the people here,that are of the Baptist persuasion (sp), when asked what religion they are will say "Christian". It seems to me that they are trying to claim that name for themselves, like no other denomination counts as being Christian. Is this some sort of tactic?

[ Dijkstra’s curse on me for having used a, gasp, GOTO statement! And there is no if() break; statement in the block. We are stuck in an endless loop here.]

Nigel D:

What about Ralph Wiggum?

— Stanton

Stanton, I resent the implication that Ralph Wiggum would make a better president than I. Although, since he was born in the US, I guess he is better-qualified than I ...

Stacy S. : Also, I don't know how pertinent to this conversation this is, but after re-reading Richard's comments - I remembered something I wanted to ask about in this forum. Since I've moved to Florida, I've noticed that a lot of the people here,that are of the Baptist persuasion (sp), when asked what religion they are will say "Christian". It seems to me that they are trying to claim that name for themselves, like no other denomination counts as being Christian. Is this some sort of tactic?

Stacy

Here is the link that to the thread on Dembski using the Harvard video w/o permission...

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/diexpelled-for.html

Thanks Stanton. It's actually quite creepy to me. I never thought about it much until a friend of mine told me that her Mother inlaw say's that all Catholics are going to hell. I'm just wondering when the religious wars are going to start.

Thanks J.J.!! How did you figure out who I was?? LOL!! :)

JJ: Stacy Here is the link that to the thread on Dembski using the Harvard video w/o permission... http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/diexpelled-for.html

AAaaaaack!!! I think I have to move back up north!!! How do I get this on the National News??!! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Casey S Says:

January 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here is my e-mail to Mark Southerland and the response I got from him, who is on the School Board of Taylor County. It is amazing how using ALL CAPS is an obvious indicator of a creationist.

Dear Sir

I am currently a teaching assistant and research assistant at the University of Florida working on my PhD in a science related field and I have a BS in Biology. While it is disheartening for me to have to educate people who are tasked with the important job of creating teaching standards for our vulnerable children, it appears this is necessary. Firstly, your description of evolution as a theory of how the universe is formed, immediately elucidates your ignorance of the issue and forces anyone reading the resolution to think you are arguing from ignorance. While it is tempting to dismiss your conflation of how the billions of suns and planets formed with how species have changed over time and thus conclude your entire argument is false, I will flatter you and continue. You are correct that evolution is considered a Scientific Theory but in scientific terms a Theory is used in a much different manner than in common parlance, where it means just a hunch, or an idea that needs testing. Evolution was initially a hypothesis, which is roughly equivalent to the common usage of the word hunch. His hypothesis has gone through decades of testing from many independent trials and lines of evidence (genetics, the fossil record). During the period of discovery, If ONE single piece of evidence could accurately discredit evolution, the whole theory would have to be dropped as false and scientists would move on trying to find another way to explain the transitions in the fossil record and the genetics and similarities of living forms, but the question would still be there. But during this period of discovery these lines of evidence have thoroughly and confidently strengthened Darwin’s hypothesis more than Darwin could have ever dreamed of. Therefore, Darwin’s hypothesis got elevated to the status of Theory, the final resting place. Because you see, a Scientific Theory is stronger than mere facts, a theory explains a whole suite of facts and thus is much more powerful than the individual and dry facts. The same is true of the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Plate tectonics. Perhaps I am wasting my time explaining the science, from your mischaracterization of evolutionary theory it becomes apparent that you are more interested in what you perceive are the implications of the theory on your religious and spiritual beliefs. On that issue, I don’t have much to say except to mention, do you think it is fair to force your students to be blinded by your personal religious and spiritual objections. If you truly cared about your students, you would understand that they are going to be competing for jobs and continuing the great American project of industry, technology and scientific advancement. As a current teacher who was educated in another state, I have noticed that the students of Florida have a lot of catching up to do in many areas. If we truly care about our children, that would be our highest priority rather than promoting our own idiosyncratic religious beliefs.

His response

LETS SEE NOW, YOU ARE A TEACHING ASSISTANT AND I CAN RESPECT YOUR OPINION, WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH- YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK OUT THIS WEB SITE - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ AND SEE HOW MANY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE WITH YOU-CHECK IT OUT YOU MAY START HAVING SOME OTHER VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT-HOWEVER I WILL NOT CALL YOU AN IDIOT OR IGNORANT EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE YOU MAY WELL BE. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME, MARK SOUTHERLAND-SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DISTRICT ONE- TAYLOR COUNTY FLORIDA. "

Did Mr. Southerland give permission for his response (such as it is) to be published? While it's often tempting, we need to be mindful of sinking to their level.

Unbelievable.
I wrote a letter to one of the state board members (I don't live in FL now but will soon, and I own property and pay county taxes there) I hope I get a better response than that.

HOWEVER I WILL NOT CALL YOU AN IDIOT OR IGNORANT EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE YOU MAY WELL BE.

— Stacy S.

I agree Nigel - it's scary! ... Just to be clear - Casey S. does not equal Stacy S. I pulled that off of the http://www.flascience.org/wp/ website.
Stacy

Bill Gascoyne: Did Mr. Southerland give permission for his response (such as it is) to be published? While it's often tempting, we need to be mindful of sinking to their level.

Ravilyn Sanders: The email is the property of the recipient. Stacy does not need permission from the sender to publish it. She could submit that email as evidence that the objection from that school board is religiously motivated and move to have the resolution of that district to be excluded from consideration by the state board. (usual disclaimers IANAL etc)

His response

— Stacy S.

I was the one who sent and received that letter. I have no legal background but I have no moral objection to spreading this letter as long as there are no legal repercussions. I hope that the poster who said that the e-mail is my property is correct.

Frank J:

His response

— Stacy S.

A link to AIG?! Oh, Lenny Flank, here's another one for you. And Ron O., if you're still following this long thread, here's someone who didn't get either DI "memo" (the first is that you're not supposed to promote YEC, and the second that you're not supposed to promote ID either, just the designer-free phony "critical analysis" of evolution).

I have seen long boilerplate legalese in emails from some companies.

Like, "This email is a confidential communication from Brain Dead Corporation. If you get this email by error do not redistribute blah blah blah"

Even these do not assert any ownership claims nor do they issue gag orders to legal/correct recipients. Nor do they include copyright
claims. So I don't think there is any restriction on Casey in redistributing the email. It is my impression that according to Sorbanes Oxley Act they have to retain the emails for
three years. But what do I know? I am a code monkey not a lawyer.

IANAL, obviously and first of all.

But as far as i can tell, this was an exchange between a concerned citizen and a local government official who, in that official capacity uttered what he did. It is beyond my comprehension how an official's official statements can be anything other than public, in a democracy, I hasten to add. I mean, if nothing else, he must have been using "company" e-mail, yes?

In fact, an official official probably ought to be more careful in keeping his/her private inflexions in fact private. It seems to me (see above caveat) that it was a big mistake to let his personal follies creep into his official capacity in this case.

Probably chalk it up to the [arrog|ignor]ant crowd who think the omnipotent, omniscient GOD really needs so much help from her humble servants of the mud.

So I wouldn't worry too much about the legalities. If you do, however, talk to an attorney.

I guess it is a matter of degrees ...

In this case, it might be possible to haul the contemptible officious twit to court, if that is desirable. In other cases -- maybe not so much: xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe

PvM, are you still around, or have you given up on this long thread? Would there be any legal problem with making Casey's letter and Mark Southerland's reply the topic of a new thread, so that more people see it?

Segregation may be the only solution. This appears to be a "My Daddy can beat up your Daddy" kind of thing. LOL

For the record, I did not say anything about any legal ramifications about not getting permission to reproduce someone's e-mail. I was thinking more about keeping the moral high ground. However, I find I must agree with whoever pointed out that public officials replying to questions from constituents should not have an expectation of privacy.

jesse hoots: Segregation may be the only solution. This appears to be a "My Daddy can beat up your Daddy" kind of thing. LOL

And so the circle closes. Segregation, Final solution, holy quests, flat-out bulling, Holocaust denial, ...

ABC to XYZ to KKK, Jessus teh crapenter to Beelzebub.

Anathema indeed! Antichrist, anyone? Forked tongue, perhaps? When the Devil gets old, He'll be gettin' rilijun.

Or maybe I'm just seeing unwholy ghosts all around... Better go check under my bed!

Segregation may be the only solution. This appears to be a “My Daddy can beat up your Daddy” kind of thing. LOL

tell, me, mr. hoots, you don't happen to belong to this organization, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus

Ichthyic: Segregation may be the only solution. This appears to be a “My Daddy can beat up your Daddy” kind of thing. LOL tell, me, mr. hoots, you don't happen to belong to this organization, do you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus

jesse hoots: Segregation may be the only solution. This appears to be a "My Daddy can beat up your Daddy" kind of thing. LOL

Jackelope King:

jesse hoots: Nigel...Legion are cast out angels. Cast into this world from Heaven. You may be one, and if not, you are definitely in league with them. You are a ranting demon. You go into Holy scripture (of which you know nothing about) and pick out a phrase and try and use it as a tool. I have tried to get responses from True Christians. Not people straddling the fence. They obviously have no interest in your worldly gibberish. They obviously have better things to do. You are one-sided unthinking people who can only believe what they see. And when you do see it, you want to take it apart and give it your own useless meaning. Lucifer is your God, and he has helped you dig a hole so deep for yourselves you will never get out. In short, everything about your heathen asses SUCK !! Evolutionist Bullshit.... Have a nice day.

Hey, Jesse? I'm a Catholic, and someone who accepts modern evolutionary science as the best explanation we have about the origin of genetic diversity in organisms today. I consider myself a "True Christian". You've heard from me now, and other Christians who accept modern evolutionary science. I hope this fits your request in Comment #139653: it's a false dilemma to claim that you can either be a "True Christian" or you can accept evolutionary science.

Stacy.... Strange group. Don't think I ever heard of anything like that. LOL Also, why would you assume I was on a side, and why the religious one? I could not care less who wins this debate.

jackelope....You may have missed my post. For me this is "Thesis" study. Most all posts were made by friends here at home. Hard for me to think in terms of nastiness. Subject was "Comfort Zone". We all have one. Only two posts were from me. One asking if this may be a social problem. And another with thoughts about my father. This situation with these folks (of which I think most are just average people)will most likely never have an end. Unless someone blows the world to pieces. And that is likely.

Jesse - I'm not sure what you are talking about?

Jesse, I noticed your "thesis" statement right away - but I still find you// you all - untrustworthy. If that was an experiment for a thsis - it was mean. If it wasn't, then you are really in need of some help. I'm dealing with that kind of fanatic right now - for real. As far as taking sides - I don't know what you mean?

jesse hoots: jackelope....You may have missed my post. For me this is "Thesis" study. Most all posts were made by friends here at home. Hard for me to think in terms of nastiness. Subject was "Comfort Zone". We all have one. Only two posts were from me. One asking if this may be a social problem. And another with thoughts about my father. This situation with these folks (of which I think most are just average people)will most likely never have an end. Unless someone blows the world to pieces. And that is likely.

I mean, a reputable college would have a student expelled if his thesis research consisted of hate-rantings and lies.

And you actually are married and have an 11-year old daughter? What kind of values do you teach your daughter? That it's ok to lie, cheat, hate and steal because God said it was ok?

Jesse,

I have young children who are more mature than you.

One of the guys says you are a collection of disruptive misfits. I think you just have a low level of tolerance. LOL Good grief people, it's science. A person that can't return to his/her comfort zone after mental trauma is considered psychotic. Seek help. Too bad we could not get some replies from your opponents. Trolling the Internet? That is what it's for. Information. If you offer yourselves up for slaughter, then why question being slaughtered?

Good grief people, it’s science.

— Jesse