300 secular students visit Ken Ham's Creation “Museum”

I don't think it was a real triceratops. I can see the electrical outlet in back of it, where it is recharged each evening, no doubt.

YOU ATHIEST/SCIENTIST/RATIONALIST/PATRIOT/MUSEUM VISITORS CAN'T FOOL US!

/poemode

No serious Evil Genius wears trainers.

Mighty fine Shindig!

Ah, just as God intended. Man riding his trusty intelligently designed Dino-steed.

The pics and reviews of the "Museum" remind me of the Roadside attractions along Hwy 101 in Northern California, Trees of Mystery, Confusion Hill, etc.

Nor would an evil genius wear that tie!

You guys did a wonderful thing. No question. Now, the challenge is to expose to the general public what you found. The silliness, the absurdity, the foolish nonsense and mindlessness of the place.
Thanks to all of you who went there, and especially to that Evil Doctor Myers and the Secular Student Alliance.
Bwahahahahahahhhaaaaaa . . . . .

The picture does have some inaccuracies. I mean, everyone knows you need reigns and stirrups to properly control and ride a triceratops. And that saddle, really? You need a saddle like those used to ride camels if you're going on a long distance journey. Otherwise you'll keep sliding off the back. And look at this little fella! It's obviously a juvenile incapable of carrying a large male of PZ's stature. As I understand it, Adam was quite a bit shorter.

Yep, I'd say Mr. Ham has more scientific research to do if he wants my respect. =:)

What you wrote was that 300 secular students lined up for the museum. What Ken Ham saw was 300 customers lined up for his museum. We already know what is inside that dump. I see no gain whatsoever in continuing to line Ham's pockets.

So many people have made that argument, and it's getting a little stale. What I saw was 300 vocal young people getting informed -- people who are now speaking out against the museum. We won. Any time we push back ignorance, it is a victory.

If it will make you feel better, apparently the museum, in their paranoia, hired extra security to watch us during our visit. I don't think they made any profit at all.

FastEddie wrote:

"What you wrote was that 300 secular students lined up for the museum. What Ken Ham saw was 300 customers lined up for his museum. We already know what is inside that dump. I see no gain whatsoever in continuing to line Ham’s pockets."

I can just see the headlines now:

Creation museum makes record profits with outreach to students!

In other news, in a soccer match between the United States and Mexico, Mexico finished second and the United States came in next to last!

As much as I detest giving money to Ham, I think it is a small price to pay in order to expose his duplicity for all to see. When creationists refuse to even read a scientific paper, we can hold this up as an example of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, (of their brain cells), in order to expose creationist lies.

Now if PZ could have gotten a group discount rate, that would have been even better. At any rate, the extra security was priceless. Were they afraid that PZ would try to ride off on the Triceratops? We should rename this the Fred Flintstone memorial museum.

We did get a group discount! It was $10 instead of $23.

Is that one of those kid's rides you used to see at shopping malls in his "museum?" You know, put in a quarter and it bumps up and down for a minute - gives kids a thrill. Maybe that's his idea of kicks.

Now if PZ could have gotten a group discount rate, that would have been even better.

Thanks guys. I feel so much better now.

Can I assume that the museum did not know the identity of the group when it offered the group discount? Can I assume that PZ was not thrown out by security once he was recognized? Can I assume that the incident was not video taped and will not be used to promote the museum as being endorsed by scientists?

PZ Myers said: We did get a group discount! It was $10 instead of $23.

PZ Myers said: So many people have made that argument, and it's getting a little stale. What I saw was 300 vocal young people getting informed -- people who are now speaking out against the museum. We won. Any time we push back ignorance, it is a victory. If it will make you feel better, apparently the museum, in their paranoia, hired extra security to watch us during our visit. I don't think they made any profit at all.

I mean it’s a museum so they had to have valuable, relevant artifacts supporting their position, right?

The economist in me wants to come out and play.

The museum's marginal revenue from the visit was $3000 ($10 x 300). Their marginal cost from these 300 extra people tromping through the building probably was not very much: a few extra security guards, a few more toilets being flushed, and maybe an extra hour to clean up. So, we could estimate the marginal costs as:

$600 for 5 guards working 8 hours for the day at $15/hr.
$50 for 5 janitors to work an extra hour each cleaning up at $10/hr.
$240 for 2 extra tour guides working 8 hours for the day at $15/hr.*

It looks to me like the museum only incurred an extra $890 in expenses at most from the visit, which is well below the marginal revenue of $3000 even if the true expense was twice my number. So, rather than a trivial effect, the museum's profits were probably nicely enhanced from the visit.

Maybe the visit will further spread word of the absurdity of the museum and improve science eductation so that in the long run they will actually lose visitors. Maybe. But given the Ham's target audience, the publicity seems as likely to increase business. "Pastor says the evilutionists are in a tizzy over the creation museum. Let's go there for vacation!"

* Other expenses such as rent, property taxes, insurance, etc. would have been incurred and in the same amounts even if P.Z.'s group had not shown up that day, so they are not factored in here.

Admission fees: $3000
Extra Staffing: $ 890
Profit: $2110

Making a complete laughing stock out of Ham and his amusument park on an international scale: PRICELESS

P.S. The picture of PZ riding the baby dinosaur is also priceless. The poor little critter's face looks awfully strained though...

How much did they charge for beer?

fasteddie said: The economist in me wants to come out and play... ...So, rather than a trivial effect, the museum's profits were probably nicely enhanced from the visit.

What would be worth more than the maximum that AIG might have made on the deal is to obtain a critical analysis - or the more likely weaseling out thereof - of specific YEC claims by DI folk. Everyone from the supposed YEC Paul Nelson to the common-descent-accepting Michael Behe should be asked to comment.

Reason is an enemy, millions of years is an enemy, let's add another: reality is their enemy. No wonder they're so paranoid!

— PZ Myers

With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham.

(PZ Myers) claims concerning our exhibit on the Tower of Babel: With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham. I publicly challenge this professor to document with photographs and actual scripts that the Creation Museum teaches “that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham”!! Not only do we not teach such an absurd idea (that sadly has been used by some to promote racism and prejudice against dark skinned people), we teach against it. In our book Darwin’s Plantation, I particularly deal with this issue, pointing out that dark skinned people (“black” people) are certainly not “the cursed offspring of Ham.” In fact, it is only one of Ham’s sons who was cursed (and not Ham himself)—the younger son Canaan—who gave rise to the Canaanites and people of Sodom and Gomorrah—judged for their sexual immorality. And this “curse” of Canaan has absolutely nothing to do with skin shade! We do not teach that “all races stemmed from the children of Noah”—as we explain, there is only one race biologically of human beings (as we are all descendants of two people, Adam and Eve)—different people groups, but not different “races.” When we speak or write on this topic, we usually will say things like “so-called races” or put “races” in quotes to make the point. I always urge people not to use this term (because of how it has been used with evolutionary connotations), but use the term people groups. The “Confusion” section (dealing the Tower of Babel) in the Creation Museum teaches that all the people groups on earth today are descendants of the three sons of Noah—obviously so, as Noah’s family was the only family to survive the Flood.

Some “White” Christians have assumed that the so-called “curse of Ham” (Genesis 9:25) was to cause Ham’s descendents to be black and to be cursed. While it is likely that African peoples are descended from Ham (Cush, Phut, and Mizraim), it is not likely that they are descended from Canaan—the curse was actually declared on Canaan, not Ham. --- Paul Taylor and Bodie Hodge, "The Bible and Slavery", AIG, 2007.

FL said: There may be other areas of Myers' article in error, but this one is very clear and demonstrable, even though I have not had an opportunity to visit the Creation Museum for myself. FL

Mike Elzinga said: When is FL going to learn any science?

What does anything in his holy book have to do with scientific evidence?

Why bring up this crap here? Who cares?

Okay, first off, regarding this Ham silliness.. yes, the curse was said to have been placed on Canaan. The offspring of Ham, who himself is described as being the originator of the African race. This is graphically depicted in the museum by picture with an arrow leading from the tower of babel, for Ham's offspring the arrow goes into Africa and I should stress that the beginning of the arrow has "Canaan" written inside it. If Canaan's offspring didn't become Africans I'm a little puzzled what that name is doing at the root of the African diaspora vector.

The defense appears to be that Ham originated the African race, but Canaan, the cursed one, didn't count as African even though he was one of Ham's offspring.

I know ID supporters have a problem with the concept of nested hierarchies, but if Ham's descendants became the Africans then his son was one of them. Unless the bible says "but Canaan did not begat anyone else and his curse died with him".

And a comment on the issue of whether this was useful or just fattened the other Ham's coffers.. I'm of two minds about it. I think the guy is rolling in money, it's not like this SSA visit was the difference between him having to close the doors of the institution versus them staying open another year. But still, yes, it probably did provide him with more money and he's not going to be accomplishing anything positive with those extra resources.

But at the same time, this whole phenomenon of creationist museums is completely unknown to at least some. I've been repeating these stories to other people, and they repeat them to others.. and the reports that I get back are that some people are completely astounded to hear that creationism museums exist. We take this for granted, but apparently there are still people in the US who think that creationism is a historical footnote rather than an ongoing concern.

I can't say whether this little stunt reached any of those people, but if it has some good may yet come of that. It's certainly being spread through the web 2.0 sphere. It's being blogged, posted to youtube, posted to flicker, and so on.

And this last one is certainly not productive in any sense, but.. I am so enjoying watching Ham squirm regarding the publicity surrounding this thing.

Sorry, but somebody's gotta say it. If non-whites are descendants of Ham, why is there still (Ken) Ham? ;-)

Frank J said: Sorry, but somebody's gotta say it. If non-whites are descendants of Ham, why is there still (Ken) Ham? ;-)

FL said: So it seems to me (a non-white person, btw) that this part of PZ Myers' article is clearly and visibly in error, and Ham is clearly correct.

Nomad said: I should stress that the beginning of the [African diaspora] arrow has “Canaan” written inside it. If Canaan’s offspring didn’t become Africans I’m a little puzzled what that name is doing at the root of the African diaspora vector.

FL said: There may be other areas of Myers' article in error, but this one is very clear and demonstrable, even though I have not had an opportunity to visit the Creation Museum for myself.

eric said: What is clear to me is that you are willing to completely ignore primary source evidence (the exhibit) in favor of a secondary source (Ham's discussion of the the curse of Ham) when it supports your preconceived opinion.

FL might not be lying if the Creationist Museum or it's materials really do disown the idea of Canaan's curse being passed on to all his descendants and instead confine it to Canaan himself, or that Africans aren't Canaan's descendants but come from other sons of Ham.

Wheels said: FL might not be lying if the Creationist Museum or it's materials really do disown the idea of Canaan's curse being passed on to all his descendants and instead confine it to Canaan himself, or that Africans aren't Canaan's descendants but come from other sons of Ham.

eric said: You could be right; some of the museum displays could be unclear in their messaging. That would simply mean that they are crappy in terms of both content and presentation, rather than just being crappy in content.

Part of the difference in interpretation of the message of that particular display may have to do with the background of those viewing it:

FL has repeatedly demonstrated the bizarre mindset of the fundamentalist.

— Mike Elzonga

bob said: A novice or non-initiate who has at least heard of the curse to Ham's son, will see... ...The primary audience would see the display differently...

Frank J said: But the fundamentalists keep evolving, so there might be hope. 500 years ago they'd torture you if you were a round-earth, heliocentric YEC.

eric said: I think your point is not an argument against the crappiness of the presentation, its an example of it. One does not need to be an aeronautics engineer to learn something at the Air and Space museum, yet evidently one has to know how to read the Bible in a specific, certain way to understand these exhibits.

eric said: What you say is, however, in line with PZs linked summary. Specifically, it agrees with PZs comments that the museum does not actually attempt to explain anything, it simply asserts things with little or no discussion. No thinking here folks, just regurgitation.

Wheels said: FL might not be lying if the Creationist Museum or it's materials really do disown the idea of Canaan's curse being passed on to all his descendants and instead confine it to Canaan himself, or that Africans aren't Canaan's descendants but come from other sons of Ham.

By the way, why are Adam and Eve assumed to be good white folk?

Okay, sincere thanks to Wheels and Bob for at least trying to point folks in something of the right direction.

And sincere thanks to PZ Myers for providing an ENLARGED photograph of the museum exhibit in question, within his article.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/08/hamite.php

When you look at this enlarged photograph, you can see everything quite quite clearly. And I won't lie to you: this one is clear and unambiguous.
I can completely understand why Ken Ham found it so very unbelievable that PZ Myers would accuse the Creation Museum of advocating the position that black people are the cursed descendants of Ham, based on THIS particular exhibit. Myers got it wrong.

******

Look at the enlarged photograph. Please. Go look at the enlarged photograph please.

First, each of the large direction-arrows are clearly marked: "Descendants of Shem", "Descendants of Ham", "Descendants of Japheth". Very clearly marked. Each arrow points out the geographical migration-direction taken by one of the sons of Noah (and family/descendants) following the dispersion event at Babel.

Second, the place names corresponding to where each son-of-Noah migratory group "finally landed" are clearly marked.

WRT Ham's sons, Canaan clearly landed in the Mideast, where one day the nation of Israel would conquer them (see the "Canaan" place name there?).
Mizraim and his folks landed in what would become Egypt. Cush and his people landed farther south, in what would be called Black Africa. (But please remember that there was NO curse on Cush or his descendants!!)

Nearby to Canaan, you see the "Aram" place name. Aram was a son of Shem, and you see that the "Descendants of Shem" arrow extends in another direction, as does the "Descendants of Japheth.

Now look at this Bible Atlas online map for a second. Do you see that the place names of the Creation Museum exhibit are the same (and in the same general location) as the place names on the Bible Atlas map? Please look (click to enlarge):

http://www.originofnations.org/shem%2Cham%2Cjapheth/maps_charts/earlymiddleeast.jpg

******

Okay, so now you can see---clearly see---that each arrow of the museum exhibit is meant ONLY to tell you which clearly marked "Descendants of So-And-So" landed where, and what direction they migrated in. You see the place names there where each descendant landed and rooted themselves in.

Obviously, Canaan is NOT the father of Mizraim (the Egyptians), nor the father of Cush (the black Africans.) The cursed son called Canaan landed somewhere else and his descendants were rooted in THAT spot, as described by standard Bible maps and also by the museum exhibit.

That spot wasn't Africa. Get the picture, Nomad?

******

See, that's the thing. Those arrows clearly say, "Descendants of Ham...Shem...Japheth". The maps are clear as to who went where. So is the Bible. We KNOW that Cush was black Africa and Canaan was Mideastern. If you even own ONE itty bitty cheapo bible with the itty bitty cheapo maps in the back pages, (especially one marked "Table Of Nations"), you could have figured this out prior to fifth grade.

But hey, I'm not trying to put down anybody. I want people to focus on the accusation that was made and consider that the visual museum exhibit evidence clearly refutes that particular accusation.

(Remember that I already pointed out that none of AIG's written articles support the Ham-black-curse hypothesis and they do offer genuine refutations of it. If the Creation Museum teaches the Ham-black-curse, how is it that you can't find ANY written articles by AIG at all that advocate for it while simultaneously finding repudiations of it? Do you have an answer for that?)

Oh, I could, Mike Elzinga, I really could do some attacking with this kind of elementary-level, you-gotta-be-kidding mistake. I could do me some good---how did Eric say it?---"bing-bing-bing" on some guys around here for not doing homework, trafficking in biblical illiteracy, etc etc.

******

But let's hold it there. We don't have to attack each other, we could dialog instead. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this assessment. Can you at least agree that there's NOT any substantiation from the museum exhibit (please look at that enlarged photo again!) for Myer's specific accusation?

FL

FL said: Okay, sincere thanks to Wheels and Bob for at least trying to point folks in something of the right direction... When you look at this enlarged photograph, you can see everything quite quite clearly. And I won’t lie to you: this one is clear and unambiguous. I can completely understand why Ken Ham found it so very unbelievable that PZ Myers would accuse the Creation Museum of advocating the position that black people are the cursed descendants of Ham, based on THIS particular exhibit. Myers got it wrong. FL

And even in the US we see fundamentalist groups who manage to get control of an institution or venue who then shut down any form of dissent or questioning while browbeating and threatening non-believers.

— Mike Elzinga

FL said: But let's hold it there. We don't have to attack each other, we could dialog instead. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this assessment. Can you at least agree that there's NOT any substantiation from the museum exhibit (please look at that enlarged photo again!) for Myer's specific accusation? FL

Frank J said: That may be a possibility for all I know, but my strong suspicion is that that would not be the case, and that the concessions are real, because they realize that they just can't deny the evidence, And who knows how much more evidence (of evolution, common descent and old earth) many of them privately accept but just won't dare admit.

FL, it's nice to know that you're healthy!

Let me remind everyone that on 30 May 2009, at 4:02 AM, FL listed "a total of FOUR huge, long-standing, and intractable reasons why evolution is incompatible with Christianity. "

A mere 7 hours and 38 minutes later, Dave Luckett quietly, modestly, and politely demolished each of FL's "long-standing and intractable reasons".

One hour and 12 minutes after that FL promised a reply to Dave and to the others who had responded to FL.

Instead, on 4 June 2009, FL changed the subject about the first "intractable reason" and then changed the subject about the second "intractable reason", then said "I want to eliminate the last two squibs tomorrow if I can."

Well, FL, it's been more than two months rather than one day. But do you care to comment on the way you demolished your own claim?

4:02 AM???

I think that pretty much says it all.

Hey FL,
Could you please tell us exactly WHERE in the Bible there is any indication that Cush was the progenitor of black Africans?
Sure looks to me like Gen 10:8 declares him to be the ancestor of the Babylonians and other Sumerians. Do you imagine that the Babylonians were black? Are there later verses that unambiguously point to other descendants of Cush moving to sub-Saharan Africa?

And in how many generations did they evolve their black skins?

And is the curse on Canaan an example of divine justice? His father (Ham) commits an offense (why exactly WAS that an offense, anyway?), so his SON (or actually his son's descendants many generations later) are condemned to genocide and slavery? Does the punishment seem to you to fit the crime?

If that seems right and just to you, then I want no part of such "righteousness" and "justice." If your god really behaves that way, then to hell with him.

FL, in NZ about ten years ago the leader of the Christian Heritage Party, (CHP; a minor non-represented party in Parliament) was found guilty of sexually molesting a 12 year old girl. Graham Caphill was jailed for 11 years and his party collapsed; good riddance.

My point is this, his followers also began scouring the old testament for obscure hidden referrances to defend his abominable activities. They succeeded in using old testament writings to exonerate him; Not Guilty, in the court of idiocy; guilty and jailed by common reason and modern thought: How exactly are your rants and arguments any different?

Uh..no. My point is: It is not clear and unambiguous. If you have a Bible with you and are following along or are an initiate to the particular interpretations of AiG, the meaning may seem clear.

Umm, one typo correction. I meant to say "300 atheist kiddies", not "200 atheist kiddies". My apologies.

Hey FL, Could you please tell us exactly WHERE in the Bible there is any indication that Cush was the progenitor of black Africans?

FL said:

Hey FL, Could you please tell us exactly WHERE in the Bible there is any indication that Cush was the progenitor of black Africans?

To answer your question, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Cush FL

According to Genesis, Cush's other sons were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtecah, names identified by modern scholars with Arabian tribes.

FL calls for reasoned dialog: But let's hold it there. We don't have to attack each other, we could dialog instead. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this assessment... FL

FL lets ad hominem insults fly: Bob, I'm not expecting that Prof. Myers and his 200 atheist kiddies would prep for their Creation Museum visit...

Mike Elzinga said:

Frank J said: That may be a possibility for all I know, but my strong suspicion is that that would not be the case, and that the concessions are real, because they realize that they just can't deny the evidence, And who knows how much more evidence (of evolution, common descent and old earth) many of them privately accept but just won't dare admit.

I certainly appreciate your optimism; and you apparently have paid more attention to sectarian differences and changes than I have. I hope you are right. The fundamentalists, of the Calvinist variety, I have encountered have simply adopted more stealth tactics in their attempts to inject their doctrines into secular society. Many of them have considerable money from their large (and now international) family businesses and wield considerable local political influence.

Wow. The staunch defenders of PZ are doing what they love to accuse the IDiots of doing. Please stop.

In an otherwise excellent and enjoyable article (I loved the incest bit), PZ made a mistake - accusing the Museum of supporting the racist 'Ham's curse = black' - when it does no such thing.

Ken picks up on this mistake and takes umbrage. In your rush to defend the great PZ, you all take the bait, and start using IDiot tactics, such as changing the subject "it's wrong scientifically" or hopeless weaseling "it's a poorly designed display".

A simple "I stand corrected" would demonstrate the difference between us and them, and allow the conversation to return to the blazing idiocy of the Museum.

Dan quoted the Wiki article : According to Genesis, Cush's other sons were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtecah, names identified by modern scholars with Arabian tribes. [emphasis mine]

DNAJock wrote:

"...allow the conversation to return to the blazing idiocy of the Museum."

Well perhaps FL could explain for us the evidence for a worldwide flood. Or perhaps he wants to claim that the museum doesn't support that view or that the Bible doesn't make that claim. Perhaps FL could provide the evidence that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together, or perhaps he want to claim that the museum doesn't advocate that position either.

You can argue about racism all you want, but that still won't make creationism science.

The rhetorical question "Can the Cushite change his skin?" in Jeremiah 13:23 implies people of a markedly different skin color from the Israelites, probably an African people; also, the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament made by Greek-speaking Jews between ca. 250 BC and 100 BC uniformly translates Cush as "Ethiopia."

If you actually read what I wrote, I commend Ham for trying to get away from the racist history of the Hamite theory...but he is still promoting an utterly bogus explanation for human origins that has, at its heart, a racist distinction...that you can cleanly separate out the races of mankind as discrete lineages with a discrete post-Flood origin.

You might want to look at the latest on the "museum" -- racism is the rot that runs through the whole thing.

PZ, I may have missed something that you wrote. When you say you commend[ed] Ham for trying to get away from the racist history of the Hamite Theory, I can only find the following

It's very nice of Ken Ham to now clearly deny the racism implicit in any literal interpretation of the Bible, and I urge him to continue in his progress towards recognizing the metaphorical aspect of these fables. Maybe soon we'll even get him to realize that you can't use the Bible to argue against "millions of years", either!

I hope you can see the irony in the following exchange.

• "The Hamite theory has been used to justify slavery, therefore it's bad. How dare they mention it without reference to its sordid past"
• "The fact that people who don't understand the Hamite Theory have used it to justify racism does not affect the veracity of the theory."

I don't think that every mention of Darwinism needs to be qualified with a statement that Darwinism is unrelated to so-called "Social Darwinism".

The Hamite theory is refuted by the evidence. Say no more.

And 99.9% of the people who visit the Museum know which continent Canaan is in, I suspect.

FL said:

Hey FL, Could you please tell us exactly WHERE in the Bible there is any indication that Cush was the progenitor of black Africans?

To answer your question, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Cush FL

Frank J said: Astute anti-evolution activists keep conceding specific claims to mainstream science (quietly of course) but in doing so, they have more options to mislead the “masses.”

There does seem to be a resurgence of (round Earth, heliocentric) YEC in the wake of ID’s stunning defeat at Dover, but in the long run YEC will be unable to withstand OEC competition, so the pressure remains to keep the focus on “Darwinism” and say as little as possible about the alternative.

FL said: I don't know how else to say it: SOMEBODY should have put in some homework, one way or another, prior to making that specific accusation against the Creation Museum based on that specific exhibit. Is it so very hard to simply say publicly, "Okay, that's not what they teach, I retract that claim"? FL

DNAJock said:

Wow. The staunch defenders of PZ are doing what they love to accuse the IDiots of doing. Please stop.

In an otherwise excellent and enjoyable article (I loved the incest bit), PZ made a mistake - accusing the Museum of supporting the racist 'Ham's curse = black' - when it does no such thing.

Ken picks up on this mistake and takes umbrage. In your rush to defend the great PZ, you all take the bait, and start using IDiot tactics, such as changing the subject "it's wrong scientifically" or hopeless weaseling "it's a poorly designed display".

A simple "I stand corrected" would demonstrate the difference between us and them, and allow the conversation to return to the blazing idiocy of the Museum.

And how about the Hindu Cush (or Kush) mountains in Afghanistan, huh? Sounds to me like a more believable destination for a group that moved from Turkey east into Sumeria. And they wouldn't have had to evolve so radically and rapidly into black Africans. Of course that imagined migration wouldn't justify the "curse of Ham," which, yes, was and still is used by white xian supremacists as justification for black slavery and oppression. Those are the folks that made those maps in your bible.

The Right has been stoking the paranoia of the lunatic fringe, then they get all indignant when anyone suggests that violence could result. People like Limbaugh and Beck have been comparing Obama to Hitler and the health care plan to Nazi euthanasia programs, and suggesting the Administration plans to confiscate guns, but don't you dare point out the link between their rhetoric and the gun nut who killed three cops in Pittsburgh, or the white supremicist who thinks Obama was born in Kenya and attacked at the Holocaust Museum, or the anti-abortion extremist who murdered a Doctor at a church. It only took one Timothy McVeigh to kill hundreds of people-the Right is spawning potentially thousands of them.

BTW, noone should forget that Bob Jones University, which spews out creationist "educational" materials for home-schoolers and christian schools, was still racially segregating students socially less than a decade ago.

PZ Myers: "....over 300 of us gathered before the doors of Ken Ham’s very silly establishment and spent an afternoon prowling through the absurdities."

Ray Martinez said: Ken Ham, a so called "Creationist," accepts the concepts of evolution and selection to exist in nature (quote marks justified). The Fundies are on YOUR side, PZ.

Wheels said:

Ray Martinez said: Ken Ham, a so called "Creationist," accepts the concepts of evolution and selection to exist in nature (quote marks justified). The Fundies are on YOUR side, PZ.

Very few anti-evolutionists deny evolution absolutely. Ken Ham denies it beyond the "kind" level and also subscribes to a Young Earth Creation model. Yes, Ham is indeed a Creationist. Show me a "Creationist" who fits your apparently different criteria.

Ray Martinez said: Any person who accepts the concepts of evolution and selection to exist in nature is not a Creationist---you are confused.

Ray wrote:

"Any person who accepts the concepts of evolution and selection to exist in nature is not a Creationist—you are confused."

He also wrote:

"Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist."

So then Ray, are we to infer that you do not believe in evolution, even "microevolution"? Are we to infer that you do not believe in selection, any type of selection? Are we to infer that you deny that which is easily demonstrated and studied, that which has been successfully modeled mathematically?

Oh and by the way you still haven't answered any of my questions Ray. How can you be an "immutabilist" in defiance of all of the genetic, developmental and fossil evidence Ray? How do you explain the evidence? If you can't or won't, why should anyone care what you think?

If you really don't think that Ken is a creationist, why don't you tell him that? I'm sure he will be amused. Meanwhile, as long as he tries to distort science and undermine science education, real scientists will oppose him, regardless of what label you or anyone else chooses to use.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Just Bob said:

And how about the Hindu Cush (or Kush) mountains in Afghanistan, huh? Sounds to me like a more believable destination for a group that moved from Turkey east into Sumeria. And they wouldn't have had to evolve so radically and rapidly into black Africans. Of course that imagined migration wouldn't justify the "curse of Ham," which, yes, was and still is used by white xian supremacists as justification for black slavery and oppression. Those are the folks that made those maps in your bible.

"Kush" in the names of these mountains has had a number of etymologies associated with it, but none of them refer to a biblical source. See the wikipedia entry on them, which I would give the link to if I knew how to imbed links here.

You know, it does seem to me that Ray "Old Earth-Young Biosphere-Creationist-species immutabilist" Martinez is doing exactly what so many posters on this site have pleaded for FL to do. That's to take a clear position.
For that, Ray, you are to be commended.

Now, are you willing to take the next step and give a fair hearing to the overwhelming scientific evidence against your view?

If not, are you willing to concede that your position is religious and/or philosophical, and as such is appropriate to discuss in many forums (including this one) but not in public school science classes?

If you are honestly willing to keep views which are contradicted by strong scientific evidence out of public school science classes, as far as I'm concerned, you're on our side, creationist or not.

FL said: Dan, are you going to read the rest of the Wiki article or do you just want to ignore it?

The rhetorical question "Can the Cushite change his skin?" in Jeremiah 13:23 implies people of a markedly different skin color from the Israelites, probably an African people; also, the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament made by Greek-speaking Jews between ca. 250 BC and 100 BC uniformly translates Cush as "Ethiopia."

Wheels said:

Ray Martinez said: Any person who accepts the concepts of evolution and selection to exist in nature is not a Creationist---you are confused.

You're wrong. When you make up your own definition for a term and argue from that, it's called "bullshitting."

Hoary wrote:

"Now, are you willing to take the next step and give a fair hearing to the overwhelming scientific evidence against your view?"

No he isn't. I've been asking him to explain the evidence for months, he won't. The only thing that seems to be immutable are his opinions, not species, not definitions, just opinions directly contradicted by all of the evidence.

Well that might be good enough to convince an acorn, but it certainly should not convince any thinking individual with any integrity whatsoever. So I guess Ray's audience is rather limited and his chances for success even more so. Oh well, at least he provides "this is your brain on creationism" teaching moments occasionally.

At least "I'm the only true creationist" is slightly more original than "I'm the only true Christian". That routine was getting pretty old.

jesus, this thread sounds like something from 'townhall.com'; what happened?

Let's get back to tyranosaurous-chicken explanations, and leave FL to his Ham-Negroes incantations.

FL said: Dan, are you going to read the rest of the Wiki article or do you just want to ignore it?

The rhetorical question "Can the Cushite change his skin?" in Jeremiah 13:23 implies people of a markedly different skin color from the Israelites, probably an African people; ...

Dan said: But if FL wants to draw attention to the silly parts of the references he cites, who am I to complain? After all, can FL change his reasoning skills?

Dan said: The first time around, I ignored this part of the article because it was so obviously silly. But if FL wants to draw attention to the silly parts of the references he cites, who am I to complain? After all, can FL change his reasoning skills?

DS said: Ray wrote: "Any person who accepts the concepts of evolution and selection to exist in nature is not a Creationist—you are confused." He also wrote: "Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist." So then Ray, are we to infer that you do not believe in evolution, even "microevolution"?

Are we to infer that you do not believe in selection, any type of selection?

Are we to infer that you deny that which is easily demonstrated and studied, that which has been successfully modeled mathematically?

Oh and by the way you still haven't answered any of my questions Ray. How can you be an "immutabilist" in defiance of all of the genetic, developmental and fossil evidence Ray? How do you explain the evidence? If you can't or won't, why should anyone care what you think?

If you really don't think that Ken is a creationist, why don't you tell him that? I'm sure he will be amused.

Ray wrote:

"The evidence of connectedness or relatedness or near identical genomes, is evidence of the signature of Divine Mastermind. We conclude that this Mastermind is the Genesis Theos, which renders, like I said, the appearance of connectedness to be an illusion because the Text says each species owe their existence in nature to an act of interventionism."

Wrong Ray. Since you will not examine the evidence, you have no idea what the evidence is. You have no basis on which to draw this conclucion. If you had actually bothered to look at the evidence you would have seen that it includes things that cannot reasonably be attributed to intelligent agency. But then again, if you deny all selection and all speciation then you are completely clueless anyway.

How about this Ray, why don't you tell us exacatly what evidence leads you to conclude that the earth is old? After that we can move on to the evidence that makes you conclude that life is young and that species are "immutable". If you ever get that far then perhaps we can finally get to all of the evidence that you ignore. Until then, no one cares what you believe.

Your attempts at righteous indignation are disgusting. You are a total hypocrite. You are no Christian!

Ray Martinez said:

Are we to infer that you do not believe in selection, any type of selection?

Correct. The concept of selection does not exist in nature. Intelligent agency exists in nature---exclusively.

I give up on Ray. His writing is approaching word-salad levels and sounds too much like Time Cube.

DS said: How about this Ray, why don't you tell us exacatly what evidence leads you to conclude that the earth is old? After that we can move on to the evidence that makes you conclude that life is young and that species are "immutable". If you ever get that far then perhaps we can finally get to all of the evidence that you ignore. Until then, no one cares what you believe.

Wheels said: I give up on Ray. His writing is approaching word-salad levels and sounds too much like Time Cube.

Come on Ray, we're waiting. Got any evidence for anything whatsoever? You know a wise man once said that what you believe is not as important as why you believe it. Once again, I was right.

You can believe anything you want, no one cares. You have no evidence, only misconceptions.

Maybe Ham should have called it micro-Lamarckism.

Ray: The concept of evolution does NOT exist in nature. Species are immutable.

ds--

I see your point. What kind of Divine Mastermind would deliberately inflict such a severe brain chemistry imbalance on one of his creations?

hoary puccoon said: ds-- I see your point. What kind of Divine Mastermind would deliberately inflict such a severe brain chemistry imbalance on one of his creations?

Wheels said: I give up on Ray. His writing is approaching word-salad levels and sounds too much like Time Cube.

Ray Martinez said: The concept of evolution does NOT exist in nature. Species are immutable.

Ray: The concept of evolution does NOT exist in nature. Species are immutable.

There are no T.Rex’s in the forests, therefore life has evolved.

The only constant in nature is change.

Dang. I meant to add "immutable" to Heraclitus' saying -

The only immutable constant in nature is change.

Ah, but the rate of change can change, so change isn't actually constant after all! (Especially with inflation changing the amount of change that you get back.)

DS said: Come on Ray, we're waiting. Got any evidence for anything whatsoever? You know a wise man once said that what you believe is not as important as why you believe it. Once again, I was right. You can believe anything you want, no one cares. You have no evidence, only misconceptions.

Dave Lovell said:

DS said: How about this Ray, why don't you tell us exacatly what evidence leads you to conclude that the earth is old?

The Bible.

After that we can move on to the evidence that makes you conclude that life is young and that species are "immutable".

Young biosphere is based on a worldwide flood that occurred circa 3140 BC. Species immutability (among other evidence) is based on the predominant fact seen in the paleontological record: stasis.

If you ever get that far then perhaps we can finally get to all of the evidence that you ignore. Until then, no one cares what you believe.

We don't ignore evidence. We explain evidence. [SNIP....]

Henry J said: Ah, but the rate of change can change, so change isn't actually constant after all! (Especially with inflation changing the amount of change that you get back.)

Ray Martinez said:

How about this Ray, why don't you tell us exacatly what evidence leads you to conclude that the earth is old?

The Bible.

After that we can move on to the evidence that makes you conclude that life is young and that species are "immutable".

Young biosphere is based on a worldwide flood that occurred circa 3140 BC.

Species immutability (among other evidence) is based on the predominant fact seen in the paleontological record: stasis.

If you ever get that far then perhaps we can finally get to all of the evidence that you ignore. Until then, no one cares what you believe.

We don't ignore evidence. We explain evidence.

From faraway England this all seems like something out of a Neil Gaiman novel - it's just too good to be true!

If this is really what's going on over there, please keep me updated with events like this. This is hilarious! And people I've shown it to over here are quite dumbfounded when I tell them it's actually happening!

Please, oh please, keep Ham and his kin over there!!!

Ray Martinez said: We don't ignore evidence. We explain evidence. [SNIP....]

PZ Myers said: If you actually read what I wrote, I commend Ham for trying to get away from the racist history of the Hamite theory...but he is still promoting an utterly bogus explanation for human origins that has, at its heart, a racist distinction...that you can cleanly separate out the races of mankind as discrete lineages with a discrete post-Flood origin. You might want to look at the latest on the "museum" -- racism is the rot that runs through the whole thing.

eric said: As many people have said before, evolution is just the observation that life has changed over time. There are no T.Rex's in the forests, therefore life has evolved. Mutability is a fact; how that mutability occurs is the Theory of Evolution.

OC said: So the T. Rex is extinct due to mutations and natural selection and not natural disaster?

"He purports to be able to correct us about fables for which he has no evidence and for which he has no prospect of ever acquiring evidence."

What pompous garbage! You claim to be a well informed intellectual, yet you lack the ability to craft a coherent sentence! How about:

"He insists that his unfounded theories hold water."

I hope you realize I just conveyed the same thought you did using 1/3 as many words.

You internet intellectuals make me ill. It's truly a shame that your awkward drivel is commonly accepted as "good" writing. Maybe you could "enlighten" more people with your evolutionist theories if you wrote in a discernible manner.

Eric said: "He purports to be able to correct us about fables for which he has no evidence and for which he has no prospect of ever acquiring evidence." (snip offensive reflection)How about: "He insists that his unfounded theories hold water." I hope you realize I just conveyed the same thought you did using 1/3 as many words. You internet intellectuals make me ill. It's truly a shame that your awkward drivel is commonly accepted as "good" writing. Maybe you could "enlighten" more people with your evolutionist theories if you wrote in a discernible manner.

I have heard the case for evolution and ive listened to evolutionists give so called evidence,i have talked to people who believe in the theory of evoriddiculous,and they all claim to be smarter than Richard dawkin,because they believe that they can answer what Dawkins cannot.eg when asking my friend who believes in the theory of evolution to give an example how matter can give rise to information in the geneome, my friend replied energy.well that was strange to me and Richard Dawkins,because he cannot answer this question,can any evolutionist.

Todd:

Please give us a rigorous definition of "information", as it applies in this particular instance, and maybe we can help you.

Otherwise we will suspect you of word games.

Thanks.

Oh, and we'll take you more seriously if you pay a little more attention to punctuation, spacing, paragraphs to separate your thoughts, and so on.

This is a science website, not a high school text message forum.

At the moment it looks like we're going to try to have a conversation with a 5-year-old, and why should we bother?

I'd considered you may be ESL but even foreign languages have syntax and grammar rules.

christian todd said: I have heard the case for evolution and ive listened to evolutionists give so called evidence

because he cannot answer this question,can any evolutionist.

todd wrote:

"...give an example how matter can give rise to information in the geneome, ..."

That;s easy. Gene duplication, followed by random mutation provides variation on which natural selection can act to bring about adaptation. Well studied examples include:

Hemoglobin genes

Ribosomal genes

Histone genes

Hox genes

The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. This is a very well understood mechanism. Just go the the actin thread for another good example. Anyone who says that information cannot arise from natural processes is an idiot.

Your friend's answer is a perfectly correct and adequate one at the level the question allows. Energy acting upon matter produces emergent effects (which depend on the specific properties of the matter and the energy) and these emergent effects include organisation into more complex patterns, implying a specification which requires further information and hence provides further information.

The genome is a very complex pattern indeed, with a great deal of information, but there is no reason to believe that it could not have emerged from many layers of interaction between matter and energy at increasing levels of complexity. Many of these interactions are known, and the conditions under which they take place have been closely specified. Molecular biology is the science that studies, and to a rapidly increasing degree, defines and describes these interactions, down to the molecular level, as its name implies.

But of course this will make no impression on you at all. Your mind is already made up, as is signalled by your use of terms like "so-called evidence", "evoridiculous", and your false and foolish contention that Richard Dawkins cannot account for the fact that the genome contains information. You plainly do not understand what you read, if you read at all. I frankly doubt it, because you cannot compose a sentence that does not contain obvious spelling, punctuation, syntactical and grammatical errors.

In other words, christian, get a basic education, then learn some mathematics (enough, at least, to understand the question you ask), then some chemistry, physics and biology. If you get started now, you'll probably be in a position to ask your question and understand the answer in ten years or so. Unless and until you do, you're only showing your ignorance.

my friend, let me start with an appology for my ignorance and grammar(english was not one of my strong points in school)so please bear with me.

I never implied that Richard Dawkins connot account for the fact that the geneome contains information,my point was that prof Dawkins could not give an example as to how matter could give rise to information in the geneome,and neither have you. all you have said is that "the genome COULD have emerged from many layers of interaction between matter and energy".That is the closest you have come to answering this question.You have not given an example.
To answer the question "give us a rigorous definition of information".
Information is not a part of matter,information is a non material enterty,information is "information neither matter nor energy".American mathematician Norbert Wiener.

To answer the question “give us a rigorous definition of information”. Information is not a part of matter,information is a non material enterty,information is “information neither matter nor energy”.

Christian todd said: my friend, let me start with an appology for my ignorance and grammar(english was not one of my strong points in school)so please bear with me. I never implied that Richard Dawkins connot account for the fact that the geneome contains information,my point was that prof Dawkins could not give an example as to how matter could give rise to information in the geneome,and neither have you. all you have said is that "the genome COULD have emerged from many layers of interaction between matter and energy".That is the closest you have come to answering this question.You have not given an example.

Christian todd said: my friend, let me start with an appology for my ignorance and grammar(english was not one of my strong points in school)so please bear with me.

The scientific definition of information,Statistics(signal,number of symbols),Syntax(set of symbols,grammar(what i lack in),Semantics(meaning),Pragmatics(action)and Apobetics(result or purpose).Only if we have all 5 characters ,then its information.Anything MATERIAL,such as physical/chemical processes,cannot create something non-material,Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission,information CANNOT originate in statistical processes,There can be NO information WITHOUT A CODE,ALL codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient,The determination of meaning FOR and FROM a set of symbols is a mental process that requires INTELLIGENCE,That is what is observed in all known systems.There can be no NEW information without an INTELLIGENT,PURPOSEFUL SENDER,Transmitted information to received information,any given chain of information can be traced back to an INTELLIGENT SOURCE,In most cases we cannot see the sender.Information comprises the non-material foundation for all:Technological systems ,works of art and biological systems.The DNA molecule has the highest density of information,the information in a pinhead of the DNA molecule(if you were to store the information in books)would reach a distance 500 times futher than the moon.I appologise again for my grammar but would it bother if i was 5 years old,i mean we all learn

Well, sounds like you have it all figured out, you already know your own answer beyond any further discussion, and you're fully satisfied. So why are you here asking questions?

Christian todd said: I appologise again for my grammar but would it bother if i was 5 years old,i mean we all learn

Well this idiot writes are you smarter than Professor Dawkin

Christian todd said: Well this idiot writes are you smarter than Professor Dawkin

Christian todd said: Well this idiot writes are you smarter than Professor Dawkin

Christian todd said: The scientific definition of information,Statistics(signal,number of symbols),Syntax(set of symbols,grammar(what i lack in),Semantics(meaning),Pragmatics(action)and Apobetics(result or purpose).Only if we have all 5 characters ,then its information.Anything MATERIAL,such as physical/chemical processes,cannot create something non-material,Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission,information CANNOT originate in statistical processes,There can be NO information WITHOUT A CODE,ALL codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient,The determination of meaning FOR and FROM a set of symbols is a mental process that requires INTELLIGENCE,That is what is observed in all known systems.There can be no NEW information without an INTELLIGENT,PURPOSEFUL SENDER,Transmitted information to received information,any given chain of information can be traced back to an INTELLIGENT SOURCE,In most cases we cannot see the sender.Information comprises the non-material foundation for all:Technological systems ,works of art and biological systems.The DNA molecule has the highest density of information,the information in a pinhead of the DNA molecule(if you were to store the information in books)would reach a distance 500 times futher than the moon.I appologise again for my grammar but would it bother if i was 5 years old,i mean we all learn

As the Bard said rather perfectly, "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing".

Do you actually know anything about information, Todd? Because, I assure you it does not seem like it.

Do you actually realize that you can't bluff your way out of this because information theory is an extremely well understood field?

Do you realize that information theory is so well understood because it's at the very core of technology sectors of great economic importance, like communications, cryptography and data storage?

If I was to start discussing the difference between lossless encryption, lossy encryption and carrier channels, could you keep up?

If we were, perchance, to ask you to explain the difference between basic Shannon information theory and Kolmogorov complexity, what would you say? Because you're on a blog where we argue about stuff like this.

So really, Todd, before you make a total ass out of yourself, go skim the several thousand words in the Wikipedia entry, with an eye to the fact that many of us actually deal with this everyday and actually understand the stuff, and there's no way you're going to bluff your way past us.

This really is one of those times when it would be best to follow Mark Twain's famous advice "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

The creation of information does NOT require intelligence. The interpretation of information requires intelligence. Why is is that creationists can never seem to comprehend this simple point?

Flint said: (anyone who) who actually understands anything being discussed here couldn't write anything that atrocious on a dare.

todd wrote:

"Anything MATERIAL,such as physical/chemical processes,cannot create something non-material,Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission,information CANNOT originate in statistical processes,There can be NO information WITHOUT A CODE,ALL codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient"

Todd, there is information in the red shift that is observed when the light from distant stars is analyzed. The red shift was not produced by any intelligence, it was produced by entirely material processes. Knowledge can be gained from analyzing and interpreting the information in the light. There is no code, no intentional choice and no agreement with any sender. The information is present in the light whether anyone analyzes it or not. Therefore, your claim is conclusively falsified. Please stop making demonstrably false statements.

(Sigh) All right, todd. Don't say you didn't ask for this.

The definition of "information" that you supplied is incorrect. Because it is incorrect, it is misleading. It implies that no information can be produced without a mind to give it meaning. That is untrue. Information can be, and is, spontaneously produced in nature by means that have no mind.

Water vapour in air may condense into droplets, if the air cools. The droplets form clouds. This happens because of the blind forces of nature. Well, the clouds now contain more information than the water vapour alone. Want to check this? Look up at the clouds. Is it going to rain soon? Yes, or no? A mind with an experience of clouds can use their shapes, colours and movements to extract that information. But here's the thing. Whether there's a mind interpreting the information or not, the information still exists. The rain will fall, or not, without that mind.

This is an example of information created by the interaction of natural forces, existing without any need to interpret it, and producing further information still. The rain falls; water collects on the earth. It flows downhill, impelled by the blind force of gravity, but it does so in patterns of exquisite complexity - dendritic drainage - and these patterns similarly create information.

More and more information is thus created, and the result is the drainage and water erosion patterns of the earth - valleys in dendritic patterns, river plains and braided channels of extraordinary complexity, oxbow lakes and all the rest. To describe any of these patterns requires information, which means that the information is present in them. But the patterns, with their inherent information, exist without interpretation. They produce further patterns without interpretation. The patterns are the result of the interplay of natural means and natural forces. They are, as we say, emergent from them.

Hence, it is plain that natural forces create, use and apply information inherent in the described processes without the intervention of intelligence.

Life, that immense repository of information, can be explained in exactly the same way.

I am reminded of the Rabbi Hillel, who was asked to explain the whole law while standing on one foot. He did it thus: "Do not do to another what is hateful to yourself. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary. Now go study." The last three words are as essential as the rest. I can only commend them to you.

Christian todd appears to be engaging in the usual mindless, robotic taunting. He doesn’t appear to be reading anything for comprehension; just flinging turds to annoy people.

But you gotta admit, he flings the most marvelously mangled turds. To the point where it's hard to tell what the ingredients once were.

Dave Luckett said: Hence, it is plain that natural forces create, use and apply information inherent in the described processes without the intervention of intelligence. Life, that immense repository of information, can be explained in exactly the same way.

Hmm,some very interesting responses there,let me start by saying,I do not hate science,no creationist does,I just have a problem when the laws of nature are broken to suit peoples doctrine.I don't have it all figured out as one of you has suggested and my comments are not meant to annoy anyone as another has suggested.The comments that i made were not false,i recomend that you read or watch "In the beginning was information"by DR.Werner Gitt.I myself trust what iam taught,what i can't trust is an ever changing theory.And finally to Dave Luckett ,I do study.P.S to Mike and Flint,do the turds that i fling mutate into a new species.Happy new year.

Q.E.D.

"Christian" taunting it is.

Nah Mike just having a joke with you ,i mean us Christians do have a sense of hummour as too ,i thought youre comments were funny.

Christian todd said: Hmm,some very interesting responses there,let me start by saying,I do not hate science,no creationist does,I just have a problem when the laws of nature are broken to suit peoples doctrine.I don't have it all figured out as one of you has suggested and my comments are not meant to annoy anyone as another has suggested.The comments that i made were not false,i recomend that you read or watch "In the beginning was information"by DR.Werner Gitt.I myself trust what iam taught,what i can't trust is an ever changing theory.And finally to Dave Luckett ,I do study.P.S to Mike and Flint,do the turds that i fling mutate into a new species.Happy new year.

Todd...

Oh, hell. It's pointless.

DS,you really need to work on you're Cardiff accent,perhaps more than you're science.

fnxtr said: Todd... Oh, hell. It's pointless.

Christian todd said:

fnxtr said: Todd... Oh, hell. It's pointless.

Im waiting.

Christian todd said: I'm waiting.

stevaroni said:

Christian todd said: I'm waiting.

You're waiting? Waiting for what? Ask a freakin' question, already. Tell us exactly what kind of information you're concerned about seeing generated, and we'll give you an example. But you're just waving your hands in the air, using the English word, which frankly, means everyghing and nothing at all in a technical discussion. So tell us, Todd, specifically what kind of test you intend to use to measure the information, which in turn tells us what specific type of information you expect to see, and we'll freaking tell you where to find it.

Christian todd said: DS,you really need to work on you're Cardiff accent,perhaps more than you're science.

"You can't trust an ever changing theory."

And in that one sentence is the entire mindset of reactionary creationism. Change in itself is untrustworthy, shifty, dishonest. The idea that explanations should fit the data as it becomes available, that they should be refined and polished, and modified according to the data, this is in itself, ipso facto wrong.

This is a premodern mindset, meaning that it predates science itself. To such a mind, the Universe is essentially unknowable and unfathomable, full of inchoate and random perils; but such a mind distrusts itself no less. Humans cannot know, but more: it's best not to enquire. The world is full of snares, and enquiry can only lead one astray.

Which produces a very strange effect. The odd thing about such a mind is that it loudly trumpets its godliness, but doesn't actually trust God to be consistent, nor even just. Not surprising when one considers the attributes God has, in that mind - condemnation to limitless punishment, for one. And if it has imbibed, even at a considerable remove, the terrifying concepts of Calvinist theology, then God's wrath is essentially causeless, since no human behaviour whatsoever can ameliorate it.

What does worship mean to a mind like that? Something like the tiptoeing of frightened children about a house ruled by a presently sleeping, but ferociously abusive parent, perhaps.

As I have previously remarked, the only charitable reaction is pity.

Dave ,I agree that the universe is unknowable and unfathomable,and this world is full of snares,that is why i agree with king David when he wrote "when i look to the heavens,what is man that you are mindful of him,and the son of man that you should visit him".Jesus Christ warned us of the snares that you speak of,that is why he said "be in the world but not of it".
I disagree with abusive parent though,i mean we all discipline our children when they do wrong,and to what extent that they do wrong decides what punishment should be used.It's interesting that you write "such a mind distrusts itself",that's why we put our faith and trust in GOD ,and not ourselves.
We don't tiptoe around GOD,but rather submit or surrender to his will.It's not about walking on egg shells,it's about devotion.The father sent his son Jesus Christ to us to show us his way and to pay for our sin,not so much out of pity more out of love

Sweeny todd wrote:

"I agree that the universe is unknowable and unfathomable..."

Really? well then i guess we just better throw up our hands and quit right now after all, if we can never know everything, what good is it to know anything why bother to cure communicable diseases if we will never know what happened .005 nanoseconds after the big bang what's the point good thing science isn't done by people with attitudes like this wow will you ever know what the limits of human knowledge are if you never learn anything you can start with consistently capitalizing i or is grammar unknowable to you as well

"...that’s why we put our faith and trust in GOD ,and not ourselves."

yea, how is that working out for you how many communicable diseases has gods cured lately maybe she is too buzy creating them to punish people maybe god will correct youre lack of punctuation as well

With this long, grammatically bad statement, you've made yourself into a liar.

Why?

Because, if you don't want to go out into the world because you're terrified of being "ensnared," then you can't do science.

And yes, the abusive parent analogy is very apt. The idea that devotion to God entailing that we remain as fearful, ignorant morons because God will punish us for not suppressing our innate curiosity is odious and stupid. Or, can you explain to me why God would want to punish us for wanting to go out and study and understand the world He created for us?

You see? Again, the only charitable reaction is pity. It always comes down to this, with creationists. Because they fear understanding, they prefer ignorance. Their fear is pitiable, and so I pity them. But to allow fear to rule is cowardice, and cowardice is shameful. Therefore I am also ashamed of them. And to prefer ignorance is an offence against every moral code I respect, and therefore I call them immoral.

Tollja.

One further remark: Abused children usually blame themselves for the abuse. Horribly, they will often cry out their pitiable apologies as they are tortured. Calvinism, as received, is God as abusive parent. The back of my hand to it.

Yes Stanton,im the first one to admit that i'm "invincibly stupid",however,as someone once told me now i'll tell you,the more that you learn the more you should realise that you know nothing,so the tag that you applied to me also applies to you,did you read the statement that Dave luckett sent me,"the universe is essetially unknowable and unfathomable",so on the grand scheme of things we are all invincibly stupid,im suprised that you have not figured that out yet.I'll again quote what Jesus said,"Father forgive them for they know not what they do",or in today's terms,"Father forgive them because they have not got a clue".
Being as the statement that you made to me was personal,my reply is BLESS YOU.

The definition of a Philistine is: Don't know, don't wanna know, and proud.

The definition of a "Christian" Philistine: Don't know, don't wanna know, don't want anyone else to know, proud, and self-righteously condescending toward anyone who don't agree with my dogma. Insincere blessings on them thar ejuhcated atheists.

Sweeny todd wrote:

"...so on the grand scheme of things we are all invincibly stupid,..."

Agreed. But apparently some more than others.

qfter weeks of postin nonsense after being corrected repeatedly this guy still cant be bothered to even capitalize i consistently man i wonder if he could even figure out the capital of oklahoma im sure he couldnt no father should forgive him because he knows exactly what hes doin hes bein deliberately dense thats worse thatn bein naturally dense why would anyone behave like this

Mike,

its ajewcated what is ya ignorant

DS said: Mike, its ajewcated what is ya ignorant

Come on Detective Sergeant,i never said anything against finding cures for communicable diseases,or learning in general,but surely you can't put your faith in that,i mean there is still no cure for the common cold,Aids etc,but please don't take that statement to mean don't try.Another thing,we will not know what the limits of human knowledge are until the restoration of all things takes place.Finally ,the reason we have communicable diseases,death,suffering,violence and a broken world marred by sin,is because of two peoples disobedience in a paradise garden a good few thousand years ago,GOD did warn Adam and Eve of the consiquences.P.S I'll make a pact with you ,I'll work on my punctuation if you work on your spelling.

Wrong,I know I'm a sinner."Self righteous",not that old chestnut

P.S the blessing was sincere

Detective Sergeant,i'm glad that you don't have any bearing on the fathers forgiveness,would anyone be forgiven?You could have picked a more challenging capital,and spot on about my ajewcation.

"The universe is essentially unknowable and unfathomable" is what you think, todd, not what I think. I don't know if there's a god, but if there is, He made us curious, and He gave us understanding, the one to complement the other, and He made a Universe that we can know. Therefore, if there is a God, He means us to know. Saying that we can't know is therefore as much against your creed as it is against mine. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I don't know the reason why we have suffering, though. I do know that it isn't because two people sinned in a garden a good few thousand years ago. There never were two such people, and there never was such a garden. It's a metaphor, and a powerful one, standing for an idea: that with reason comes the understanding that actions have consequences, and with that comes the responsibility for them.

All morality depends on this fact: that we know what we do, and we understand what will come of it. Thus, it depends on understanding. Therefore, wilful ignorance is culpable, and fearing to enquire is manifestly immoral.

The point? This: enquiries show that the book of Genesis is not a literal account of the beginnings of the universe, the Earth, and life. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Or don't. Prefer ignorance. But don't tell me about how moral you are to do that. That's exactly what you aren't.

That’s exactly what you aren’t.

Flint said:

That’s exactly what you aren’t.

I disagree. It seems pretty obvious that Christian todd HAS no understanding, of anything whatsoever. Lacking that, he can't understand that his actions have consequences, so he can't be responsible for them. He's staying ignorant because someone else told him to do so. And seriously, can anyone here find any trace of reason in anything he's posted? Any at all? Even someone else's reason?

Christian todd said: Come on Detective Sergeant,i never said anything against finding cures for communicable diseases,or learning in general,but surely you can't put your faith in that,i mean there is still no cure for the common cold,Aids etc,but please don't take that statement to mean don't try.Another thing,we will not know what the limits of human knowledge are until the restoration of all things takes place.Finally ,the reason we have communicable diseases,death,suffering,violence and a broken world marred by sin,is because of two peoples disobedience in a paradise garden a good few thousand years ago,GOD did warn Adam and Eve of the consiquences.P.S I'll make a pact with you ,I'll work on my punctuation if you work on your spelling.

the reason we have communicable diseases,death,suffering,violence and a broken world marred by sin,is because of two peoples disobedience in a paradise garden a good few thousand years ago

His immoral conduct is not that he is ignorant. It is that he prefers ignorance.

Christian todd said: P.S the blessing was sincere

fnxtr said:

the reason we have communicable diseases,death,suffering,violence and a broken world marred by sin,is because of two peoples disobedience in a paradise garden a good few thousand years ago

BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!. WE'RE CLOSED (slam!)*. *Todd's brain.

Flint said:This gets slippery. Preferring ignorance requires the knowledge that he IS ignorant. But the thing about ignorance is, he lacks such knowledge. He simply can not know he's ignorant, since knowing so would render him non-ignorant!

Next time sweeny todd gets sick, we'll see if he puts his faith in antibiotics or god. Of course he will probably rationalize his choice by saying that there is nothing wrong with using the brain that god gave us, or some such crap. But then again, that was my point. Why is he allowed to post his off-topic irrational crap on this defunct thread again?

Dave you missed my point,I agree that GOD made us curious,and he gave us understanding,I totally agree with that statement,my point was to bring to someone else's attention,to call someone "invincibly stupid" is not a wise statement to make on the grand scheme of things.I'm not saying don't search,don't investigate, of course there are many benefits to be gained in scientific studies,but surely there is more to our existence than the many disciplines of science can explain,I mean there is nothing in science that explains away the supernatural.On the subject of two people and the garden we will have to agree to disagree.I agree with your statement "actions have consequences and from that comes the responsibility for them",that is totally correct,but Dave my morals get me nowhere,as a famous prophet once said as he stood in the presence of GOD "WOE IS ME".
On a final note,I do take the book of Genesis as a literal account,if I don't I am calling Jesus Christ a liar.

surely there is more to our existence than the many disciplines of science can explain

I mean there is nothing in science that explains away the supernatural.

Come on Stanton,you have a very misguided conception about creationists in that we hate science,as science has many productive qualities as you already know.We are not "hate filled"as you put it,on the contrary no creationist would ever dare laugh at the prospect of someone going to hell,that would be a total misrepresentation of everything that Jesus Christ has taught us,so I'll stand by the sincere blessing that I gave.

Is your argument then than biology is not science? Or paleontology? Or molecular genetics? Or cosmology? Or atomic theory? Geophysics, maybe?

Todd, all science is of a piece, one single beautiful tapestry. For example, we know fossils are old because geology and radio-isotope dating say so. If radio-isotope dating is wrong, then atomic theory is wrong, and if atomic theory is wrong, then the computer on which you are reading this would not exist.

Unless you believe in a trickster God who planted all the evidence to test us. You are free to believe that, but don't pretend you're anywhere near science.

Christian todd said: [. . .]i mean there is still no cure for the common cold,Aids etc,[. . .]

I called you ignorant, todd, not stupid. There's a difference. In your case, it has little to do with native intelligence. For you, to be ignorant was a conscious decision. You think that knowing is dangerous. You prefer ignorance. That's unforgiveable, in my book.

Science doesn't explain the supernatural, if there is any such thing. What science does do is explain the natural, which it has done for the origin of the species and of the Earth.

If you're going to be a literalist, be a literalist. Literalism means that you can't put in words that aren't there. Jesus never said, "The stories in Genesis are the literal facts about how the world and humanity began."

He did say, "In the beginning, God made them male and female". In the beginning of what? Humanity? Well, that's right, isn't it? Consciousness? Also true. Understanding of right and wrong? Well, of course. But he didn't say he meant anything else. You're not entitled to put words into his mouth.

Do you think that you know infallibly when Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and when he wasn't? That's your pride talking, todd. You don't know. He never said, and never implied, that the Genesis creation story must be taken literally. By saying that the Genesis stories must be taken as literal, or Jesus is a liar, you say he did say that. That is itself a lie.

So, out of your mouth comes a lie, born of pride, and the result is ignorance and fear. Remember who said that you are known by your fruits? Lies, pride, ignorance, fear. Those are your fruits, todd. Jesus would be ashamed of you.

Hasn't Todd completed his required 10 posts for extra marks by now?

Maybe he wants extra credit?

On the contrary Dave I love to learn,ignorance Dave,no I just know what to believe.You seem to know some scripture, but whether you or I believe the accounts of Genesis are literal or not is of no avail,but if you are saying that Jesus didn't mean literally,you are very much mistaken,"In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth","In the beginning was the word,the word was with GOD and the word was GOD,the word became flesh","as in the days of Noah","he was a murderer from the beginning and of course the one you mentioned,"In the beginning,he made them male and female".So in that light,Jesus refers to the accounts of Genesis as literal history.Dave,I have never said that you have called me stupid,that was somebody else.Until I know that the parables were literal history I'll take them as metaphors.You are known by your fruits,false accusation seems to be your fruits Dave,but Jesus loves you as he loves me

I never really got why I should believe the stories about this Jesus guy any more than the stories about the tribal chief called Arthur.

Maybe if the Arthurians had had the power of an empire behind them, and if there had been Arthurian Crusades and Inquisitions, and if non-Arthurians had been shunned and persecuted throughout history, we'd all learn the names of the Knights of the Round Table in Sunday School.

Small-town Arthurian businessmen would only do business with other small-town Arthurian businessmen they met at the Church of Camelot. You'd have to go there to survive economically.

Rebellious teenagers would listen to Mordred-rock, and hucksters would sell pieces of the One True Excalibur.

Christian todd lied: On the contrary Dave I love to learn

Literalist backpedalling in 3, 2...

I noticed all you can do is make funny accusations and name calling, while creationists give detailed answers. Can't you provide serious proof without resorting to unintelligent slander?

dan said: I noticed all you can do is make funny accusations and name calling, while creationists give detailed answers. Can't you provide serious proof without resorting to unintelligent slander?

dan said: I noticed all you can do is make funny accusations and name calling, while creationists give detailed answers. Can't you provide serious proof without resorting to unintelligent slander?

"God, everything, one week 6000 years ago, in the garden of Eden, magic."

There, that should save a whole lot of bullshit postings.

oh, yeah, and "the Bible".

Thank you for stating that GOD created the world and I have no problem learning about that.Jesus would not deny anyone salvation if they put their trust in him,but my point was that
He read Genesis literally.No of course I don't want to see anyone enslaved and there was no "curse of Ham",the scripture states "cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers".The Bible is very clear on the subject of racial prejudice,the scripture states"And he has made from one blood every nation of people to dwell on all the face of the earth".So there is only one race,Adam's race,the only thing separating people is culture.

Sweeny Todd wrote:

"Jesus would not deny anyone salvation if they put their trust in him,..."

And there you have it folks, Sweeny Todd admits that there is absolutely no reason why you cannot believe in evolution and not be saved. Guess he was wrong a bout that and everything else. Good to know.

Todd, you say that Jesus read Genesis literally. How do you know this? Where does he say that the stories are other than metaphors, or use them other than as metaphors for teaching points? You have been asked this time and again, and refuse to answer: Where does Jesus say that you must read the Genesis stories literally?

I repeat, you are not allowed to put words into his mouth. By saying that he read them literally, you are doing just that. You are also telling lies about your knowledge. You do not know what you say you know. Claiming knowledge that you do not possess is vanity and pride, and it results in invincible ignorance.

I shall now go and try to remove the log from my own eye, by study, for I too am ignorant. But at least I know that the log is there.

Christian todd said: Thank you for stating that GOD created the world and I have no problem learning about that.

Jesus would not deny anyone salvation if they put their trust in him,but my point was that He read Genesis literally.

No of course I don't want to see anyone enslaved and there was no "curse of Ham",the scripture states "cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers".

The Bible is very clear on the subject of racial prejudice,the scripture states"And he has made from one blood every nation of people to dwell on all the face of the earth".So there is only one race,Adam's race,the only thing separating people is culture.

Dave Luckett said: Todd, you say that Jesus read Genesis literally. How do you know this? Where does he say that the stories are other than metaphors, or use them other than as metaphors for teaching points? You have been asked this time and again, and refuse to answer: Where does Jesus say that you must read the Genesis stories literally? I repeat, you are not allowed to put words into his mouth. By saying that he read them literally, you are doing just that. You are also telling lies about your knowledge. You do not know what you say you know. Claiming knowledge that you do not possess is vanity and pride, and it results in invincible ignorance. I shall now go and try to remove the log from my own eye, by study, for I too am ignorant. But at least I know that the log is there.

Christian todd said: On the contrary Dave I love to learn,ignorance Dave,no I just know what to believe.You seem to know some scripture, but whether you or I believe the accounts of Genesis are literal or not is of no avail,but if you are saying that Jesus didn't mean literally,you are very much mistaken,"In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth","In the beginning was the word,the word was with GOD and the word was GOD,the word became flesh","as in the days of Noah","he was a murderer from the beginning and of course the one you mentioned,"In the beginning,he made them male and female".So in that light,Jesus refers to the accounts of Genesis as literal history.Dave,I have never said that you have called me stupid,that was somebody else.Until I know that the parables were literal history I'll take them as metaphors.You are known by your fruits,false accusation seems to be your fruits Dave,but Jesus loves you as he loves me

The book of Genesis states that GOD created the heavens and the earth in six days,but to say that the solar system is 4 billion years old is your interpretation of the evidence.The love and salvation of GOD through Jesus Christ our LORD is reality,so don't deny it.I look forward to the day when enforced slavery comes to an end,but there is greatness in serving.To answer your third question Stanton I would have to say ,we as Christians should never use or ignore scripture to suit our own doctrine.To answer slavery "Love thy neighbour as you love yourself",to answer antisemitism "I will bless them that bless thee,and I will curse them that curse thee"says the LORD.In saying these statements I do not condemn anyone for I too am a sinner,"There are none who are righteous,no, not one","For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of GOD".

Christian todd said: Dave,I too will try too remove the log from my eye and will also study,I'll get back to you.

Detective Seargent,do you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, or do you lean to your own understanding.

Sweeny Todd wrote:

"...I too will try too remove the log from my eye and will also study,I’ll get back to you."

Less than one hour later he wrote:

"...but to say that the solar system is 4 billion years old is your interpretation of the evidence."

Way to study Todd. If you had bothered to pick up a cosmology book, an astronomy book, a geology book, a climatology book, a paleontology book, a biology book, even an anthropology book, you would know better. And that even ignores all of the primary literature. Get to studying Todd, you have a long way to go.

The original Hebrew text states the same,and yes it is your interpretation of the evidence.

Do you study the Bible Detective seargent,if you did then you would find History,Theology,Science,Astronomy,Language,Anthropology,Zoology and Paleontology, and yes I do have a long way to go,same as everyone.

Christian todd said: Do you study the Bible Detective seargent,if you did then you would find History,Theology,Science,Astronomy,Language,Anthropology,Zoology and Paleontology, and yes I do have a long way to go,same as everyone.

Christian todd said: The original Hebrew text states the same,and yes it is your interpretation of the evidence.

Christian todd said: Do you study the Bible Detective seargent,if you did then you would find History,Theology,Science,Astronomy,Language,Anthropology,Zoology and Paleontology,

and yes I do have a long way to go,same as everyone.

Yes, but see, he'll be a saved idiot, that's all that matters.

All of you secular people, how many museums do you have? How often do believers in the Bible get it shoved down our throat about evolution. UMMM... it is everywhere. We have ONE museum that supports what we believe. And I think YOU must be pretty stupid to believe in one THEORY, that has never been proved, nor will ever be. But the biggest difference here is we do not need to slam evolution museums because we are not threatened by what you think because we are secure. By the way there are NO facts on evolution it is all theories.

Stacy said: All of you secular people, how many museums do you have?

We have ONE museum that supports what we believe.

And I think YOU must be pretty stupid to believe in one THEORY, that has never been proved, nor will ever be.

But the biggest difference here is we do not need to slam evolution museums because we are not threatened by what you think because we are secure.

By the way there are NO facts on evolution it is all theories.

First Thanks for responding, I love debating this subject.
I never said there were facts to support creationism.
I am not slamming Museums, I said I am just secure in creationism.

I believe the Bible literally.

stacy said: I believe the Bible literally.

stacy said: First Thanks for responding, I love debating this subject. I never said there were facts to support creationism. I am not slamming Museums, I said I am just secure in creationism.

Stacy said: How often do believers in the Bible get it shoved down our throat about evolution.

Stacy said: How often do believers in the Bible get it shoved down our throat about evolution. [SNIP] By the way there are NO facts on evolution it is all theories.

Science Avenger said:

Stacy said: How often do believers in the Bible get it shoved down our throat about evolution.

Shoved down your throat Stacy? Was this a phrase you learned at a teabagging meeting? Really, what is it with rightwingers and suggestive metaphors? Do you have a Haggertlike side bursting to explode out? I know guys, sorry, I just can't help myself.

Richard Simons said:

Stacy said: How often do believers in the Bible get it shoved down our throat about evolution. [SNIP] By the way there are NO facts on evolution it is all theories.

If you've had it shoved down your throat, how is it that you still do not know what is meant by a scientific theory?

stacy said: I never said there were facts to support creationism. -snip- I am just secure in creationism.

The belief that life can come from non-life and information can arise from matter despite there being no evidence of this ever happening constitutes a belief system as well. Don't knock someone because they have a belief. You obviously have your own beliefs.

The message you are interpreting from Creationists are inaccurate. They do not claim you will go to hell if you don't believe in the creation as described in Genesis.

If you think creationists are slapping scientists and students in the face and rejecting science, that simply displays your ignorance on the matter. Watch the movie Expelled if you want to see why scientists with opposing ideas are shunned by the science community. The female scientist who discovered the pliable matter inside a T-Rex thigh bone a few years back was ridiculed for the suggestion that the bone was younger than we thought. I have not seen a REAL answer from the evolutionist community about how blood cells and tissue could have survived for 65 million years as has been suggested.

What is very apparent is that evolutionists resort to name-calling when their beliefs are threatened by creationists. How many "Bible-thumpers" have you seen calling evolutionists stupid for believing what is taught to them in public schools?

answerman said: How many "Bible-thumpers" have you seen calling evolutionists stupid for believing what is taught to them in public schools?

Another word about scientists. Look up Dr. Gary Parker and Dr. Andrew Snelling. They are both great resources for geological information. Dr. Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist who has insightful information regarding the cosmos.

answerman, your answers don't compute.

Information (and, before you say it, complexity) can and often does increase as natural forces act upon material. This is easily empirically demonstrated. It's not a belief, it's a confirmed fact. To claim otherwise is mere intransigent ignorance.

Some creationists do not claim that Hell awaits those who do not believe in the Genesis account. Others emphatically do, and they say it out loud and proud.

The movie Expelled was a vile lie from top to bottom. Not one of its ludicrous claims was factual. There have been no 'expulsions' of scientists who present verifiable facts. The only attacks on scientists who do, come from outside science. Often they come from creationists.

Nobody found "pliable tissue inside a T-rex thigh bone" on first investigating. The specimen was rehydrated, the structures were no more than a few millimeters across, and no researcher stated that they were the original tissue, only that they appeared similar. Other examples of very closely detailed structures that are exquisitely preserved by mineralisation are known.

Dr Mary Higby Schweitzer, the 'female scientist' in question, did not suggest that the fossil was younger than the K-Th and amino acid racemisation dates indicated. These agreed on over 65 million years. Blood cells were not recovered, and were almost certainly not present. What was found was probable haemoglobin products and some detailed organic structures, but as the original paper states: "Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain." (Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR, Toporski JK (2005) Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 307(5717):1952-1955) That is, there is no evidence that this was ever original soft tissue at all, and it could have been mineralised. Read the original paper.

I, personally, have been called stupid and worse for advocating the teaching of science, including the theory of evolution, in public schools, and have had abusive letters and phone calls for advocating it in letters to the newspaper. My score in this department, however, is rather low, by comparison with others. Ask other regular contributers here.

You are repeating easily disproven falsehoods. I thought the founders of most religions - not only Christianity - warned their followers not to do that.

answerman said: The belief that life can come from non-life and information can arise from matter despite there being no evidence of this ever happening constitutes a belief system as well.

If you think creationists are slapping scientists and students in the face and rejecting science, that simply displays your ignorance on the matter.

The female scientist who discovered the pliable matter inside a T-Rex thigh bone a few years back was ridiculed for the suggestion that the bone was younger than we thought.

I have not seen a REAL answer from the evolutionist community about how blood cells and tissue could have survived for 65 million years as has been suggested.

What is very apparent is that evolutionists resort to name-calling when their beliefs are threatened by creationists.

How many "Bible-thumpers" have you seen calling evolutionists stupid for believing what is taught to them in public schools?

answerman said: I have not seen a REAL answer from the evolutionist community about how blood cells and tissue could have survived for 65 million years as has been suggested.

no answers wrote:

"The message you are interpreting from Creationists are inaccurate. They do not claim you will go to hell if you don’t believe in the creation as described in Genesis."

Haven't been around here much have you?

"The specimen was rehydrated" as your explanation as to why it was not pliable tissue. Wow.

"You are repeating easily disproven falsehoods."
On the contrary, there are so many articles concerning "soft-tissue vessels and cellular preservation" that I would simply be doing the work for you. If you'd like to close your eyes to the facts, be my guest. Google either "Schweitzer MH" or my soft tissue quote from my first sentence in this post. You'll find more non-creationist sites than creationist ones discussing this.

I'll help you out. Although some say differently than what you claim, so don't get mad.

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=4840

from a hardrosaur:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/06/30/rspb.2009.0812.abstract

more soft tissue talk:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=3

Of course, if you read the smithsonian article, you'll also note the scientist lamenting about how young earth creationists have hijacked her finds and deliberately twisting her words around in order to promote their own anti-science propaganda.

Correct. I did read that. That doesn't make the fact of the finding any less truthful in regards to what it was. The reason for the excitement over the find by everyone is how could this have lasted so long? Young-Earth Creationists don't find it surprising. She is an Old-Earth Creationist so she will naturally cling to the 65 million year age.

"Old-Earth Creationist"? Thank you for confirming Dr Schweitzer's lament about deliberately twisting her words in order to mislead other people.

Last I heard, the term "Creationist" specifically refers to those Christians (and Muslims, and Jews) who reject the idea of evolution because the idea somehow conflicts with their faith: Dr Schweitzer never said she rejects evolution.

Yes, Old-Earth Creationist... there's no twisting of her words at all. You should read more about Mary Schweitzer. She is a christian and accepts evolution. Old-Earth Creationist means someone who believes God created the universe and the earth but took billions of years to do it unlike what the Bible actually teaches. I'm surprised you haven't heard about that concept. There are ongoing debates amongst Christians regarding the age of the earth. A lot of Christians believe in evolution. A lot of them do not. It may help you to google "Old-Earth Creationist".

To Dave:

Dr. David Menton who has a PhD in cell biology wrote the statement below. He apparently believes in creationism and submitted this information to a creationist group so I suppose we can disregard his opinions and cast aside his PhD:

"The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of “estuarine” origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists—see “Genesis and catastrophe”).

Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).

In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.

When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. …

The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution."

This excerpt was taken from the site that you guys obviously despise.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp

I just have one thing to say. You can bash creation all you want. Just remember God created man in his own image. And we christians won't judge you Evolutionist, that is the Lord's job. So you don't have to believe in creation at all. I'll just let you think about this one thing, alright?

Jesus will return through the clouds of the sky with his angels when he comes back to judge the world one day, and every eye will see him. God created you anyway.

Does this bother you? Just learn how to pray and God will surely prove to you he exist.

May you have a blessed life.

May you, too. But for me, I would rather that I were blessed with actual knowledge.

Oh, and I missed that nonsense from answerman, back in February. Here's the actual, you know, information:

"Mass spectrometry measures the mass to charge ratio of individual molecules (peptides) that have been charged, identifying them by weight. Peptide fragmentation patterns reveal the amino acid sequence. The advantage of this method is that it extremely sensitive and can be used in cases where only very small amounts of material are available for analysis. That was definitely true of the T. rex sample, which only produced a miniscule amount of remnant protein, and the protein was in a mixture of other material that had remained after the extraction process."

In other words, the bone was almost entirely mineralised. Statements to the effect that it was like a fresh bone are therefore false.

It is perfectly true that this particular fossil was in an astonishingly good state of preservation. It was found in estuarine strata - that DOESN'T mean the same as "rock layers laid down by water" - and the conditions were as perfect as it's possible to get.

Internal structures were preserved so well that microscopic examination showed even "cell-like morphology" that is, structures that were shaped like cells. But only trace amounts of the protein remained, and no evidence for cells containing DNA was found. In other words, this is an extraordinary fossil, better preserved than any found so far - but the dating by radiometric and racemisation methods used on it agrees to within a couple of million years. It's 65 million years old, not 4500, and AiG is lying. Again.

Dave, you have knowledge from a humanistic view and your understanding and what you think you know will be blown away some day.

Are you aware of Jesus Christ's first miracle? Our creator is not confined by time as we know it and what we think the age of something is based on the best science of today doesn't mean that is the correct answer.

I do not think the earth is 6,000 years old, nor do I think it is 4.5 billion years old.

Good luck to you in your search.

Just Bob said:

FL said:

Hey FL, Could you please tell us exactly WHERE in the Bible there is any indication that Cush was the progenitor of black Africans?

To answer your question, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Cush FL

I checked it out. Those are EXTRA-biblical sources, just like the maps in the back of your bible. It doesn't count unless it's in the text of the bible somewhere. Anybody can make up stuff to show what "must have happened" or "could have happened" or "what the bible really meant" (a cottage industry among literalists). And how about the Hindu Cush (or Kush) mountains in Afghanistan, huh? Sounds to me like a more believable destination for a group that moved from Turkey east into Sumeria. And they wouldn't have had to evolve so radically and rapidly into black Africans. Of course that imagined migration wouldn't justify the "curse of Ham," which, yes, was and still is used by white xian supremacists as justification for black slavery and oppression. Those are the folks that made those maps in your bible.

Henry J said:

By the way, why are Adam and Eve assumed to be good white folk?

For the same reason that all Africans are assumed to be descended from some middle easterners...

Prince of Peace said: I just have one thing to say. You can bash creation all you want. Just remember God created man in his own image. And we christians won't judge you Evolutionist, that is the Lord's job. So you don't have to believe in creation at all. I'll just let you think about this one thing, alright? Jesus will return through the clouds of the sky with his angels when he comes back to judge the world one day, and every eye will see him. God created you anyway. Does this bother you?

Just learn how to pray and God will surely prove to you he exist.

PZ, aside from laughing at the clown that you are on the dino ride, your answer to this question should be easy, but hardly laughable to your subjects...How long from the time it was buried, in years, can buried in the dirt organic material / tissue remain unpermineralized?