Bloggingheads' business plan: Borrow credibility and then blow it.

I agree completely with the decision of any reputable scientist to not lend his or her reputation and credibility to pseudo-scientists, especially to the ID/creationists.

Of all the pseudo-science that cultivates and exploits ignorance, the ID/creationists have been by far the worst and most vicious. They have been at it for at least forty years; pouring millions of dollars into their shtick and attempting to steal unearned credibility at every opportunity.

Not even the perpetual motion hacks or those woo-woo pseudo quantum religion shticks have been as bad. At least these don’t prey on school districts by robbing them of millions of dollars in endless haggles over who gets access to other people’s children in order to miss educate them about science and proselytize them.

It would be better if not one single scientist is ever again seen on the same forum with any of these ID/creationist ignoramuses. It would be far more fruitful and less time-consuming to just relentlessly expose these ID jerks at every opportunity, and never give them a chance to respond.

The train wreck of ID/creationism has painted itself into a corner. They have produced mountains of junk science that can be pinned directly to its leaders by name, and they can no longer distance themselves from it. Rub their noses in it until it hurts them as much as they have damaged science education. They deserve nothing but contempt.

And any news medium should also be held to account if it can’t distinguish between objective reality and bullshit. News editors and reporters, in fact all journalists, need to learn that there are things that are objectively right and other things that are objectively wrong. If they can’t learn how to tell the difference, they don’t deserve to be called news media. Gossip media would be more fitting.

"But on reflection I've decided that removing this particular dialog from the site (the McWhorter/Behe interview) is hard to justify by any general principle that should govern our future conduct. In other words, it's not a precedent I'd want to live with."

FL wants the debates to continue? That's enough to make up my mind.

This is my honest and sincere assessment of the situation.

It was a nice idea, but there's no point in "playing nice" with these people - as that tiresome shit FL reminds everyone here regularly. Challenge the scientists on their science, and the creationists, antivaxers, etc. on their ignorance of science and everything else (their utter dishonesty could be soft-pedaled w/o harm, I suppose, if only out of excessive politeness).

The truth isn't usually in the middle, save by chance.

Like the rest of the ID/creationist community, FL is and always has been a vicious liar. It’s what they all are. And every time their challenges to debate are rejected, they always use the same spiel; call the scientist a coward who is unable to cope with the ID/creationist’s arguments. That has been going on for at least forty years.

I have been watching the ID/creationist shtick since the 1970s. In all that time, there has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, been an honest debate on their part.

The ONLY purpose of public debate for the ID/creationist is to leverage “respectability” from the scientist and to pad their credentials, PERIOD.

Bruce Chapman’s persecution complex shtick is just another classic pseudo-science tactic. It is one of the many tactics that identifies him and his cohorts as pseudo-scientists.

If they ever had any science to contribute in those years since they went with the propaganda approach back in the 1970s, it would have produce some kind of fruit by now; there would have been some research programs building on their work, and reputable scientists would have been able to verify at least some of it. However, what has been produced has been only a mountain of deliberate deceptions and distortions; put out with a vengeance by the likes of the “Discovery” Institute.

Can you give us any assurance that you are being honest now?

FL said: Actually, it doesn't matter much to me. After all, as a longtime critic of evolution and evolutionists in this PT forum, I'm NOT doing myself any favors by trying to alert you to the huge media mistake your boys have recently made.

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: Actually, it doesn't matter much to me. After all, as a longtime critic of evolution and evolutionists in this PT forum, I'm NOT doing myself any favors by trying to alert you to the huge media mistake your boys have recently made.

This is also a complete lie. It certainly DOES "matter" to you. You want desperately to be right, but you are always wrong. And to puff yourself up as a “critic of evolution and evolutionists” is total self-delusion. All you have ever posted here is complete bullshit that you quote-mined with no comprehension whatsoever. Wake up and get a life.

FL is addicted to "rationality"? Gosh, it's hard to keep up with the street names of illegal drugs any more.

hoary puccoon said: FL is addicted to "rationality"? Gosh, it's hard to keep up with the street names of illegal drugs any more.

Tupelo; FL is not a, 'tiresome shit', and Mike; he does not spout 'bullshit'. Both of these organic bye-products are irreducibly useful. His use is, and that of his Intellijunt Dezine rancorous quaffered old sow buddies, are yet to be determined? discovered? or, maybe, put in a small corner of the internet where they can gather in a circle and roger each other's genious?

a longtime critic of evolution

I assume that neither Neil Armstrong nor any astronaut would debate with moon-landing deniers, and they wouldn't knowingly appear in a venue known for supporting kook theories. It should be the same with debates and appearances that legitimize creationists, astrologers, faith healers, etc.

They need us, but we don't need them. All kooks should be shunned. When they respond with predictable lines like: "What are you afraid of?" the answer is: "It's not fear, it's revulsion."

Neil Armstrong doesn't debate moon-landing fruit loops, but Buzz Aldrin was once known to take a swing at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

I am still waiting for your Biblical perspective. What is the Biblical perspective on the question of whether cattle and birds were created before or after Adam? What is that perspective on the light from distant galaxies being put in place at the time of Creation? Will you give honest answers or dance around again?

FL, Liar For Jesus™ said: This is my honest and sincere assessment of the situation.

FL,

There has been a vigorous debate about evolution going on in the scientific literature for the last 150 years. The creationists are the ones who have decided not to participate. You should try to urge them to publish in the scientific literature if they want to join the debate. Until then, no respectable scientist can be blamed for not taking them seriously.

Oh, and by the way, claiming that a paper contains evidence for ID when it is not even mentioned does not count.

FL said: I honestly believe that certain evolutionists [have]... succeeded in creating a public impression that evolutionists are UNABLE to handle the scientific and scholarly challenges posed by Dr. Michael Behe and other critics of evolution. .... Their failure, will now be interpreted as YOUR failure.

My evaluation of this issue is a little different I guess. I'm just curious, but having never heard of Bloggingheads before, how big a readership do they have and is there any real reason for real scientists and real science investigators to care about the site? Given a quick read of the site, I don't find their subject matter all that interesting.

Lawyer and Intelligent-Design dilettante Phillip Johnson has this to say regarding debates:

"It isn't worth my while to debate every ambitious Darwinist who wants to try his hand at ridiculing the opposition..."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins

So, FL, I take it you've advised Phillip Johnson that he is creating a public relations failure for the Intelligent Design movement.

Robin said: Given a quick read of the site, I don't find their subject matter all that interesting.

Dan said: Lawyer and Intelligent-Design dilettante Phillip Johnson has this to say regarding debates: "It isn't worth my while to debate every ambitious Darwinist who wants to try his hand at ridiculing the opposition..." http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins So, FL, I take it you've advised Phillip Johnson that he is creating a public relations failure for the Intelligent Design movement.

(1) Behe is called a “critic of evolution” whereas in fact Behe has stated repeatedly that he supports common descent, that the Earth is billions of years old, etc. Behe has some strange (and unsupported) ideas about the mechanism of evolution, but Behe is not a “critic of evolution”.

— Dan

I'm not at all sure that I agree with the decision made here.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I'm generally in favor of constantly confronting pseudoscience.

The public is predisposed to fall in love with manipulative liars who claim to oppose "mainstream science" or the "AMA". That's just a given.

Nevertheless, I've found that when you really press the "ID" types for their own ideas, and let the public see what they're saying, rather than letting them set up and bash straw man versions of "evolution", their support can disappear. I used to meet a fair number of people who had been misled that there was something to "ID", mainly because they thought it was synonymous with theistic evolution. An actual fair explanation of the claims of ID cured them pretty quickly.

Ignorance, foolish arrogance, and unenlightened selfishness are endemic in the US today. Science has to be supported by public policy or it will cease to exist at any serious scale. Someone has to argue with these clowns or they dominate the public discourse. We've just had eight years of an administration that took their advice on science. I'm sure we can agree that it could happen again.

Of course, it depends on whether you think that withdrawing from the forum in protest is a better rebuttal than staying and arguing back.

THE most pressing reason to be concerned about the scientific creationism movement (if, that is, you don't believe that science education is leading us to an atheistic new enlightenment) is the irreversible damage it does to the average citizen's understanding of what science is. This has major consequences for our society. Here we have highlighted one of the major points of confusion in the evolution education controversy: the nature of authority in the scientific community. Propaganda of the scientific creationism movement makes use of the American distrust of elitism, as well as their distrust of science academics. This is a point that I think is often missed by pro-science advocates. Frankly, they have us there. Yes, science is run by a bunch of elitists. The average citizen does not get a vote on it. They don't get to decide what will be considered settled science. Its not fair. The appeal of scientific creationism isn't its reasoning. Its not the conclusions of its research, mostly because there isn't any. The appeal, for more than one sector of the population, is that it sticks it to the man. Its an heroic crusade against the Ivory Tower of evil.

Therefore, debates where you have to react to the wingnut aren't likely to help much. A one on one discussion misrepresents the authority of someone presenting the consensus opinion of the scientific community. And yet, the misinformation has to be countered somehow. The most useful and successful debates I've seen, both on stage and in any kind of print media, is where the pro-science advocate basically ignores the wingnut and teaches about science and its relationship with society. If we're just reacting to the wingnuts we're just adding to the confusion. But countering the propaganda, even by commenting on PT, is contributing to the debate.

Yes, debates are useful, but a distinction has to be made about the venue. It doesn't sound as though Bloggingheads was the correct venue.

Sorry, this is rambling isn't it? I just feel that there has to be a better of teaching about the importance of the authority of the scientific community to the process of science. Its getting lost in a desire to have all things be democratic.

But he is still a “critic” in the sense that he misrepresents evolution as thoroughly as any YEC does.

I’m generally in favor of constantly confronting pseudoscience. The public is predisposed to fall in love with manipulative liars who claim to oppose “mainstream science” or the “AMA”. That’s just a given.

— harold

He’s a denier of the theory of evolution.

— harold

FL, over a year ago you offered to give us the Biblical perspective on biology, but when I expressed interest, you skipped out.

FL said:

FL, over a year ago you offered to give us the Biblical perspective on biology, but when I expressed interest, you skipped out.

My apologies on that, Frank B. However, if your interest is sincere, there's no better resource on the table right now (for explaining "the Biblical perspective on biology", a pretty broad subject by itself) than Prof. Douglas Kelly's new book Creation and Change. It's relatively short but it's so well organized and well-written that it's in a class of its own. They say the theologian RC Sproul converted back to YEC after reading this one.....and that would be no small conversion.

Frank J said: I had written on another board that I would not have boycotted BH because that gave DI spin artists just what they want. But RBH's comments give me some second thoughts. It's the same Catch-22 that any science-pseudoscience debate faces with a public that is "predisposed" as you say. There's no easy answer.

Mike Elzinga said: Just don’t let them participate; because if they do, all you get is a mud-wrestling circus.

Just read Kelly's book when you get a chance, Stanton. Try your local library or bookstore. Care to address any points of my specific response to RBH, btw?

FL said: Just read Kelly's book when you get a chance, Stanton. Try your local library or bookstore. Care to address any points of my specific response to RBH, btw?

FL wrote:

"...that it’s in a class of its own. They say the theologian RC Sproul converted back to YEC after reading this one.…"

So this new book is just pushing the same old YEC nonsense. Did they ever find any actual evidence for that? Did they ever publish it? I must have missed that. When they have some evidence in the scientific literature, then maybe I might consider reading a book. Until then, this guy is expelled.

Apparently FL doesn't have any original ideas of his own and must refer you to someone else's book when asked for his opinion. Oh well, I guess he doesn't have any evidence either.

Stanton said: So let me get this straight, you started babbling about your own "Biblical perspective on biology," and then deliberately ignored everyone just so you can advertize newly published Creationist nonsense one year later?

wile coyote said:

Mike Elzinga said: Just don’t let them participate; because if they do, all you get is a mud-wrestling circus.

Sir, no objections to what you said whatsoever ... but we don't have that NOW?

Care to address the fact that you’ve been caught bearing false witness AGAIN?

You had a whole year to reply to Frank, FL. I don't understand how spamming newly rehashed Creationist junk is supposed to make up for ignoring Frank for a whole year, especially since you do not mention a summary of the book, nor do you bother to offer how this new book is supposed to be the new authorative text on Young Earth Creationism.

FL said: But I got no time for games, Phantom.

Stanton said:

FL said: But I got no time for games, Phantom.

Yet you appear to have all the time in the world to engage in spamming, derailing threads with innuendo which you have never ever delivered on, and lying about evolution and creationism.

FL said:

Care to address the fact that you’ve been caught bearing false witness AGAIN?

On what? Be specific. My response to RBH, for example? Then demonstrate it (instead of duckin' it.) If you want to change the suuuubject, and discuss the events of a year ago, I already apologized to Frank B. Could have been sickness stopped me, could have been participating in 2 separate threads and got tired or forgetful and gave my time to the other thread instead of Frank B's inquiry. But I got no time for games, Phantom. Address my response to RBH if you have minimal (VERY minimal) courage to do so. FL

Fundamentalist theologian Kelly's allegedly "new" book is a dozen years old. I have the first edition.
It's half a Genesis YEC literalism defense against other "heretical" interpretations, hermeneutically justifying the fundamentalist-exegesis of Genesis.
The other half's trivial "Biblical view of biology" amounts to Genesis says kinds, not common descent - along with the obligatory creationist blurbs against evolution (Behe's DBB had just come out). It barely addresses any scientific problems with baraminology, except to recycle pronouncements of Henry Morris, etc.

A total waste of time from the perspective of understanding and explaining details of biology. Anyone could get more info browsing AiG - or the baraminlogy group.

JohnK said: Fundamentalist theologian Kelly's allegedly "new" book is a dozen years old. I have the first edition.

FL said: I honestly believe that certain evolutionists (specifically Carroll, Zimmer, Plait, and Myers) have, as a result of their actions, genuinely succeeded in creating a public impression that evolutionists are UNABLE to handle the scientific and scholarly challenges posed by Dr. Michael Behe and other critics of evolution.

Which means you evolutionists will have only succeeded in INCREASING the level of public doubts concerning evolution, increasing the level of public interest in "Teaching The Controvery", and increasing public interest in adopting an open-minded attitude towards the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

phantomreader42 said: Not really a surprise, creationists lie as easily as they breathe.

eric said: I would also hope that honest creationists would join us scientists in taking this opportunity to remind the public that scientific validity is not the result of performance in a u-tube debate: it comes from testing ideas in the lab.

I have the first edition.

I see the poster "eric" understands the importance of staying on topic, and not trying to shift the ground of discussion because of sheer inability to deal with the reply given. That's appreciated too.

But you know, eric, I just thought of something.

Why didn't Carroll, Zimmer, Plait, and Myers simply stay with Bloggerheads and say what you said there, instead of running away?

Why is what you said, good enough and pro-science enough to be said on PT, but not good enough and pro-science enough to be said on Bloggerheads?

FL said: But I'm tiring of all the games, the shifting of the ground of discussion, and the bantering.

FL said: I see the poster "eric" understands the importance of staying on topic, and not trying to shift the ground of discussion because of sheer inability to deal with the reply given. That's appreciated too.

Stanton, please let eric respond. At least he's made a sincere effort to directly respond to my reply to RBH. You are not capable of doing that so far, so please don't interfere.

FL

FL writes about how it's good to debate.

But what of his actions, rather than his words?

FL started a debate on 30 May 2009, when he 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 it's been three months rather than one day. All he has done since then has been to demolish his own claim. Clearly FL's belief in the efficacy of debate withers when he's losing the debate.

(This is not the only time FL has abandoned a debate when it's clear that he's losing.)

FL,

How could anyone possibly stop eric from responding? And how could anyone possibly stop you from presenting all of the evidence that you have to support YEC? I told you exactly what it would take in order to engage real scientists in a real debate. Somehow you still haven't gotten the idea.

The "new" book you are pushing was apparently published in 2003. What difference does it make? It has got nothing new anyway, except creationists quoting each other and quote mining real scientists. According to Behe, if we already know it will not convince us, we don't have to read it.

FL said: Stanton, please let eric respond.

At least he's made a sincere effort to directly respond to my reply to RBH.

You are not capable of doing that so far, so please don't interfere.

DS said: ...how could anyone possibly stop you from presenting all of the evidence that you have to support YEC?

Reading a book on a science topic written by a theologian would be like reading a book on hunting written by a vegan.

Care to address any points of my specific response to RBH, btw?

OK, FL ...

1) Behe and his ID colleagues (at least the ones who showed up) were methodically dismantled at the Dover trial. The mainstream science guys made their arguments, and were subjected, on cross-examination, to Dembski's "vise strategy" ... where "evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won’t come off looking well." We know how that turned out -- a scathing repudiation of ID and some of its advocates from the Bush-appointed conservative Christian judge. If that was not sufficient for "an easy as pie, a wide open chip shot, a clear and clean media victory" I don't know what would be.

2) You ask why the advocates of mainstream science don't take the opportunity to "knock Behe out of the ring." The answer is, they already have. The creationists, including the cdesign proponentsists, simply ignore the substance of the responses, continue making factually inaccurate claims, and attempt to change the subject.

3) As an aside, if one refers to Behe as "Dr. Michael Behe," one should also refer to "Dr. Sean Carroll," "Dr. P.Z. Myers," and "Dr. Phil Plait."

The other offending Bloggingheads conversation was between John McWhorter, a linguist, and Michael Behe, a Senior Fellow of the Disco ‘Tute.

wile coyote said: Reading a book on a science topic written by a theologian would be like reading a book on hunting written by a vegan.

Need I remind you of the time you claimed to know the exact location of the Garden of Eden, then implied that I was insane when I asked you why you’ve never tried to look for it in that location?

Not necessarily. Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, Copernicus’ “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres” and Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” are just a few such books.

FL said: So, Wile Coyote, you gonna sit there silently now that Stevaroni has shot down that one-liner of yours?

FL said:

Not necessarily. Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, Copernicus’ “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres” and Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” are just a few such books.

So, Wile Coyote, you gonna sit there silently now that Stevaroni has shot down that one-liner of yours?

There already has been a great public debate between evolution scientists and intelligent design proponents. It was held at the American Museum of Natural History on 23 April 2002, and the ID-proponents were shown to be fools.

In fact, they were pummeled so badly that when ID-proponents were challenged to a second debate in January 2006 -- with all their pre-debate conditions accepted in full -- they didn't bother to show up!

wile coyote said:

FL said: So, Wile Coyote, you gonna sit there silently now that Stevaroni has shot down that one-liner of yours?

Yep.

Mike Elzinga said: Good choice. I’ve seen all the reruns of this shtick so many times over the years I even know what the precise ending is; even though the troll doesn’t. Fortunately I have a fun week coming up and won’t be hanging out here to watch the poor creature crucify himself.

FL said: You're not really making rational sense there ...

Dan said: As opposed to irrational sense?

FL taunts: So, Wile Coyote, you gonna sit there silently now that Stevaroni has shot down that one-liner of yours?

FL was asked:

"Care to address the fact that you’ve been caught bearing false witness AGAIN?"

To which he responded:

"On what? Be specific."

Someone reminded him:

"Need I remind you of the time you claimed to know the exact location of the Garden of Eden, then implied that I was insane when I asked you why you’ve never tried to look for it in that location?"

Now he wants to know:

"Why are you ignoring the thread topic and bringing this up?"

Well, maybe it is because you completely ignored all of my reasons for real scientists not participating in sham debates and you completely ignored all of my requests for you to produce evidence. If you don't want people to reimind you that you have lied before, don't do it. If you want people to seriously consider YEC preesent some evidence.

You don't get it, do you, FL?

I brought up the example of our pretend-discussion about the alleged location of the Garden of Eden because, no matter how since eric is or will be, you, on the other hand, will never give a sincere response. That's because you are an insincere hypocrite, a liar, and a cowardly gossip. You always strut around, derailing threads either with some bald-faced lie, or some snarky nonsense disguised as gossip, then you get snide and snickery, or you get wounded and huffy when we get bent out of shape pointing out your lie and your nonsensical gossip.

In fact, even the pathetically few times you've made an effort to be sincere, you've still come across as being a liar, a hypocrite, or a cowardly gossip. And there have been some times when you've even come across as either a bigot, like when you implied that President Obama and Vice-President Biden were each other's lapdogs because they aren't planning on outlawing homosexuality, or as a lunatic, like when you denounced evolution and science education as being an enemy religion.

If you don't like it when I or other posters refer back to all of the myriad times you've lied and bullshitted to us in the name of Jesus Christ, perhaps you should stop.

FL said: You want to rehash all these past long discussions in THIS thread, (being oh-so-careful to omit all the stuff that previously got in your way), instead of staying on topic and following eric's example of limiting your responses to the actual issue that Hoppe placed on the thread table. You're not even thinking through your actions of blatantly going off-topic in a fellow evolutionist's thread. That's so silly, Stanton. That's so silly, Dan.

Just wondering if there could be any casual observers who wouldn't be able to tell FL is a nutjob from any single post of his. If not, why waste the keystrokes pointing it out. We know it, he knows it, lurkers know it.

FL, let me put this in terms you might understand more readily.

You go on about how it appears that scientists don't debate Creationists and seem to be running away instead of confronting the Creationists' arguments.

While you have repeatedly been confronted with instances where YOU have run away instead of debate things here. Instead of saying "Whoops, I forgot about that! Let me have a moment to gather my thoughts and address them..." you brushed them aside as if people were changing the subject on you.

Perhaps you need to go back and read Matthew, 7:3-5.

But I’m tiring of all the games, the shifting of the ground of discussion, and the bantering. I’m checking to see if any serious responses were given to my serious reply to the thread topic (remember that, boys? the thread topic?). If I see any, I’ll respond to those.

— FL

FL: A linked forum for debate on this site is at the top of this page, right under the PT logo. The row of tabs there will take you to the "After the Bar Closes " forum where you can have your very own thread set up just for you to debate. I'll be glad to assist you in that.

I'd also be glad to debate relevant topics with you and see how well YEC pseudoscience holds up against what is currently known in mainstream (AKA: real) science.

I'm sure you'll leap at that opportunity to not only defend your YEC claims, but also to expose the weakness of evlutionary bio, "deep time" geology, astronomy, paleontology, bioanthro, etc.

Right?

P.S.
I hope you'll excuse my minor typos in my previous post, FL. I'd also like t add that I'm quite sincere in my invitation. I can promise you that I will not engage in any overt insult and I'll keep to a standard of post/response that could pass muster in any church setting.

On that note, I'd also like to say that *IF* you're actually interested in convincing anyone of the validity of your claims, then you should jump at this opportunity to sway me (and others) with your evidence.

Personally, I see you as morally obliged to accept, but that's just my view of things, by my ethics and morals and understanding of Christianity.

I'm hoping you'll view it the same way. See you there!

Mike Elzinga said:

But I’m tiring of all the games, the shifting of the ground of discussion, and the bantering. I’m checking to see if any serious responses were given to my serious reply to the thread topic (remember that, boys? the thread topic?). If I see any, I’ll respond to those.

— FL

This is just too funny. Why is he looking for someone to answer when he himself is demonstrating the answer?

I think it is a little clearer when you consider that what the ID/creationists actually do – what any pseudo-scientist does – is all planned out in advance. They sit down among themselves and actually discuss what they will do under various scenarios. They want a debate to get attention. But if they can’t get it that way, they do the taunting and shaming shtick. It’s rehearsed; I’ve seen them rehearse. I’ve seen the script. The point is to give them absolutely nothing that they want; NEVER EVER let them call the shots. But by all means shoot them down in public. Expose them, laugh at them; use the pseudo-science as a foil to teach real science. Just don’t let them participate; because if they do, all you get is a mud-wrestling circus.

— Mike Elzinga

I’d also be glad to debate relevant topics with you and see how well YEC pseudoscience holds up against what is currently known in mainstream (AKA: real) science. I’m sure you’ll leap at that opportunity to not only defend your YEC claims, but also to expose the weakness of evlutionary bio, “deep time” geology, astronomy, paleontology, bioanthro, etc.

— deadman_932

Tupelo said: (FL) makes Ken Ham look honest by comparison.

FL was asked: “Care to address the fact that you’ve been caught bearing false witness AGAIN?” To which he responded: “On what? Be specific.” Someone reminded him: “Need I remind you of the time you claimed to know the exact location of the Garden of Eden, then implied that I was insane when I asked you why you’ve never tried to look for it in that location?”

FL wrote:

"I’m checking to see if any serious responses were given to my serious reply to the thread topic (remember that, boys? the thread topic?). If I see any, I’ll respond to those."

Actually, the thread topic was losing credibility. We have demonstrated conclusively that FL has lost all of his. How much more on topic can you get?

If you want to join the scientific debate, all you need is evidence. FL has none of that either. He can whine all he wants to, but that is the bottom line. It is also the same reason why all of the scientists mentioned refused to be conned into stooping to the same level as creationists. Maybe some day FL will understand. When he does he will have two choices, either present his evidence or admit that he has none. He had done neither of these things, so we must conclude that he just doesn't get it. More is the pity.

Just like with Dan: he conveniently omits that his claim of inconsistency/contradiction between Gen, 1 and Gen. 2 in a previous thread (the one he referred to earlier) was totally demolished by multiple online sources from a diverse variety of sources.

— FL

FL spouts:

"I honestly believe that certain evolutionists (specifically Carroll, Zimmer, Plait, and Myers) have, as a result of their actions, genuinely succeeded in creating a public impression that evolutionists are UNABLE to handle the scientific and scholarly challenges posed by Dr. Michael Behe and other critics of evolution.

That impression will not go away anytime soon; the damage is done. Please give it some thought. Is this really the way you guys and gals wanted this situation to go down?"

Then, when challenged to a debate himself, he responds:

"Oh, and see you in a couple of months Tupelo. If you have anything substantive and thread-topical to offer me, please do so at that time. Right now you don’t, and you might as well take the next train out. Bye now!"

What a pathetic excuse. What a hypocrite.

Let's be clear, I have been trying to get FL to discuss the thread topic, he has steadfastly refused. All he has are excuses. An impartial observer might get the impression that he cannot handle the scientific challenge, that he actually has no evidence whatsoever. Is that really the way he wants the situation to go down? Fine by me if he runs away, but he really shouldn't be too surprised next time he shows up if someone reminds him of his hypocricy. That impression will not go away anytime soon.

I do detect some correlation however, between those who completely ignore Genesis, and those who consult it one way or another. Nearly all of the former (e.g. DI folk) concede all ages determined by mainstream science. And their positions regarding common descent range from complete acceptance to vague denial, with most opting out with a "no comment."

FL said: Why didn't Carroll, Zimmer, Plait, and Myers simply stay with Bloggerheads and say what you said there, instead of running away?

The problem with bloggingheads wasn't simply that creationists were given a venue — it was that creationists were given a venue without voices opposing their ideas. It was setting up crackpots with softball interviews that made them look reasonable, because their peculiar ideas were never confronted. That's what has to be rejected, not the idea of arguing with bad ideas

FL said: Just like with Dan: he conveniently omits that his claim of inconsistency/contradiction between Gen, 1 and Gen. 2 in a previous thread (the one he referred to earlier) was totally demolished by multiple online sources from a diverse variety of sources.

Well, Deadman, you suggestion of using "After The Bar Closes" is a pretty good idea, although it doesn't replace straightforward participation in the PT threads.

The topics I would be most interested in at AtBC are:

1. Why Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity

2. The Biblical Perspective on Biology

3. Why the ID hypothesis is Science and should be taught in Public School Science Classrooms

FL

(Carroll et al) The problem with bloggingheads wasn’t simply that creationists were given a venue — it was that creationists were given a venue without voices opposing their ideas.

Why the ID hypothesis is Science and should be taught in Public School Science Classrooms

FL said: 3. Why the ID hypothesis is Science and should be taught in Public School Science Classrooms

“Denier” is more accurate than “critic,” but there too, most people think that a “denier” of evolution denies not only the theory of evolution, but common descent too, and often also the antiquity of life. Behe denies only the theory. Or he pertends to in order to save the “masses”.

I have been under the impression that Behe accepts most of the interpretations of the evolutionary theory,

but he thinks that the proposed mechanisms are not sufficient to explain the observations.

There appears to be also another school of opposition to the theory of biological evolution. They claim that evolution never occurred. Still, they mostly argue against some of the proposed mechanisms of the biological evolution rather than challenge the very observations that have led the biologist to look for an explanation. In many cases they try to apply concepts from other areas of science, such as the second law of thermodynamics in physics, or the concept of information in technical or mathematical formulations of specific problems.

FL said: They honestly are running away, eric. It's that boycott thing again.

I suggest these topics:

1. Why Evolution is compatible with Christianity
2. The Biblical Perspective on Biology (i.e. YEC)
3. Why the ID hypothesis is not Science and should not be taught in Public School Science Classrooms

The first one we have already dealt with here.

The third one has already been decided in a court of law.

The second one you still have provided no evidence for. If that is what you want to do then please proceed. We're waiting. If not, then just admit it now and save everyone the trouble.

And by the way, this is not off topic. This is exactly the reason that real scientists choose not to debate with creationist quacks, they never have any evidence. When you present some the debate can begin. Until then, there is nothing to debate. Also, an old book full of creationist nonsense with no scientific references is not evidence of anything.

Just a very brief reply to Harold for clarification: the quote attributed to "Eric" is Eric Finn's, not mine. Though I regularly agree with my namesake :)

OK, I’d love to start here.

Okay, DS apparently favors #2. Frank B?

Also, eric, I looked at your example links there.

First one is no good. The Christian group was boycotting McDonalds for sucking up to gay gooberwoobers. They were NOT boycotting any debate or dialog invitations by anybody.

Second one is the same. Christian group wanting to boycott Bill Maher's anti-religion film.
They did NOT call for a boycott of attending Maher's HBO talk show, so it's apples and oranges again.
In fact, Most Bible-believing Christians would love to do 5 minutes in the ring with Maher on his talk show. Teach Old Scratch's Little Apprentice a bloody good lesson (verbally, of course)!!

Last one (Starbucks stores), same thing. Group calls for boycotting the store. (I prefer Folgers coffee anyway. Starbucks is no good.)

*************

But all those examples are fundamentally different than the boycott game Carroll, Zimmer, Plait, and Myers are playing. They're whining about "No opposing voices" but then taking their own marbles and leaving without registering their own opposing voices.

They're not even being asked to debate anybody. They're just mad because leading non-Darwinists like Dr. Behe aren't subject to automatic immediate censorship on BH. That's silly of them to pout like that.

No eric, that boycott (of public dialog/debate opportunities) thing ain't working anymore.

***************

According to WorldCat, the first edition of Kelly's _Creation and Change_ was published in 1997. I don't know of an online edition, but WorldCat reports print copies in about 80 libraries.

Kelly seems to be friendly with other YEC folks, such as the Answers in Genesis crew. AIG has a number of online books that I'll be adding shortly to The Online Books Page, by reader request. (We select books primarily for their research significance, rather than for their pedagogical value. We also list a number of online scientific books on evolution, or that report on the creationist movement from external perspectives, and would be happy to hear of more we can add.)

FL said: But all those examples are fundamentally different than the boycott game Carroll, Zimmer, Plait, and Myers are playing.

They're not even being asked to debate anybody. They're just mad because leading non-Darwinists like Dr. Behe aren't subject to automatic immediate censorship on BH.

d'oh...bearing false witness! Bearding them is quite different....

FL said: .... The topics I would be most interested in at AtBC are: 1. Why Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity ....

He’s consciously set up as the “token guy who isn’t YEC” by the DI.

— harold

Well, FL, a boycott is a boycott regardless of whether it’s done by conservatives or liberals.

It's pretty clear that what he objects to is putting Behe up against someone who will softball the issue.

FL whined: THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY INSTEAD. FL

Dan said: There's no point in arguing about "Why Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity".

The only way you can get around this is by playing word games: redefining “Christian” so that the Pope is not Christian, or redefining “evolution” so that it means “anti-Christian”, or redefining “compatible” or “is” or “with”.

FL said:

OK, I’d love to start here.

Interesting. Ben and Eric are very interested in topic #3.

Or by simply showing that the clearly documented teachings of evolution itself, as publicly provided by the evolutionists themselves, are in direct and total conflict with what in my personal opinion (an opinion not necessarily shared by hundreds of millions of other practicing christians) are clear, foundational Christian teachings as I (in contrast with hundreds of millions of other practicing christians) think are presented in the Bible itself, my chosen translations of both the Old and New Testament, and with my interpretation of New Testament teachings relating directly to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

FL said: You made it sound as if Christian groups were boycotting opportunities for public discussion and dialogue with evolutionists. Your three examples clearly didn't live up to that scenario.

We're NOT running away from evolutionists. OUR marbles are staying put. We be not skeer'd of the great marketplace of ideas.

Fl taunts: Interesting. Ben and Eric are very interested in topic #3. Good to see. So far no response on the other topics.

Or by simply showing that the clearly documented teachings of evolution itself, as publicly provided by the evolutionists themselves, are in direct and total conflict with clear, foundational Christian teachings as presented in the Bible itself, both the Old and New Testament, and with New Testament teachings relating directly to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

FL,

Still waiting for you to produce some evidence. Something wrong? You're not boycotting a debate are you?

Well, if you are not goiing to provide any evidence, then perhaps you can address this evidence. It provides minimum estimates for the age of the earth from many independent types of data. Not one of them gives a minimum age of less than 10,000 years.

Tree rings 50,000

Ice cores 440,000

Corals deposits 130,000

Pollen stratigraphy 5 million

Marine sediments 180 million

Magnetic reversals 160 million

Reference: Science 292:658-659 (2001)

So FL, exactly how old do you think the earth is? Exactly how long do you think that life has been on earth? Did every species appear all at once or were they created over a period of time? Was that time measured in 24 hour days? Was it less that 10,000 years? On what evidence do you base your conclusions? Where is this evidence published?

You wanted to know why scientists refuse to debate. If you can't provide any documented evidence for your views then you have the answer to your question.

FL: If you're interested in actual debate at AtBC, then register as a participant/user.

I set up your own personal thread there, and you can choose whatever topic you please, while recognizing that (a) there will be little moderation beyond basic civility requirements and (b) people will be free to set forward what evidence and challenges that they wish. It's up to you to determine your degree of focus.

It's my contention that neither YEC or ID can hold up as *valid* science. I'll be glad to see you demonstrate that wrong via evidence and without the usual illogic and fallacy-mongering that I've sadly come to expect from cdesign proponentists. Make your first post and we can go from there.

FL said:

It's pretty clear that what he objects to is putting Behe up against someone who will softball the issue.

What? Every BH interviewer gotta match PZ's level of unmitigated white-phosphorus hatred towards ID and ID supporters or else it's a "softball" gig? That doesn't rationally work either, and it definitely doesn't justify the censorship of the McWhorter/Behe interview as was attempted (and later rescinded, thankfully.)

Oh, one final caveat, FL: your AtBC thread is for actual participatory debate.

An exchange of ideas/evidence with participants acting in good faith. Merely preaching/evangelizing/"witnessing" won't do. Debate is more than that. Elaboration of ground rules can be the subject of your first post prior to moving on to your actual evidence *for* YEC or ID, if you wish, however.

Stevaroni is right. Whether reality conflicts with FL's dogma or not is Fl's problem, and a discussion for the various denominations among themselves. The facts are what they are, and facts do not care if you like them or not.

Personally, I'd have liked to see ERV debate Behe. He doesn't seem to like her, although I can't imagine why. She's a sweetie.

Dan said:

FL said: .... The topics I would be most interested in at AtBC are: 1. Why Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity ....

There's no point in arguing about "Why Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity". The fact that evolution is compatible with Christianity is well established ... the Pope is a Christian and holds to evolution. The only way you can get around this is by playing word games: redefining "Christian" so that the Pope is not Christian, or redefining "evolution" so that it means "anti-Christian", or redefining "compatible" or "is" or "with". There's no sense in debating "why claim X is true" when in fact claim X is false.

FL said:

The only way you can get around this is by playing word games: redefining “Christian” so that the Pope is not Christian, or redefining “evolution” so that it means “anti-Christian”, or redefining “compatible” or “is” or “with”.

Or by simply showing that the clearly documented teachings of evolution itself, as publicly provided by the evolutionists themselves, are in direct and total conflict with clear, foundational Christian teachings as presented in the Bible itself, both the Old and New Testament, and with New Testament teachings relating directly to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

...as Byrne said in "Crosseyed and Painless", used in "Manufacturing Consent", make of that what you will.

FL said:

FL was asked: “Care to address the fact that you’ve been caught bearing false witness AGAIN?” To which he responded: “On what? Be specific.” Someone reminded him: “Need I remind you of the time you claimed to know the exact location of the Garden of Eden, then implied that I was insane when I asked you why you’ve never tried to look for it in that location?”

And then what was the exact response given to Stanton, DS? Why did you leave out what I directly said to him about his inquiry there? What does that deliberate omission say about you? (And notice--Stanton couldn't even do anything with it after I answered and refuted him for a second time!)

FL said: ... THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY INSTEAD. FL

FL said: ...by simply showing that the clearly documented teachings of evolution itself, as publicly provided by the evolutionists themselves, are in direct and total conflict with clear, foundational Christian teachings as presented in the Bible itself, both the Old and New Testament, and with New Testament teachings relating directly to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

a) there will be little moderation (at AtBC) beyond basic civility requirements

Ummm, that's supposed to be worse than what goes on right here? Heh!

SWT said:

FL said:

It's pretty clear that what he objects to is putting Behe up against someone who will softball the issue.

What? Every BH interviewer gotta match PZ's level of unmitigated white-phosphorus hatred towards ID and ID supporters or else it's a "softball" gig? That doesn't rationally work either, and it definitely doesn't justify the censorship of the McWhorter/Behe interview as was attempted (and later rescinded, thankfully.)

It's not at all unreasonable to expect that a site that claims to want scientific debate about an issue use a scientist of PZ's level of knowledge and passion for legitimate scientific inquiry. If you think the ID people are not tough enough to deal with PZ, why not use Carl Zimmer, who knows the science? Or Ken Miller? Or Rob Pennock? Or Nick Matzke? Or Chris Mooney? Or John Wilkins? Or perhaps even Jeff Schloss?

deadman_932 said: Oh, one final caveat, FL: your AtBC thread is for actual participatory debate. An exchange of ideas/evidence with participants acting in good faith. Merely preaching/evangelizing/"witnessing" won't do. Debate is more than that. Elaboration of ground rules can be the subject of your first post prior to moving on to your actual evidence *for* YEC or ID, if you wish, however.

He may be the DI’s token guy who explicitly concedes common descent, but most main DI folk are strictly old-earth-old-life.

Meanwhile their “token YEC” (Paul Nelson) refused to answer my question last year whether he takes his “YEC” position on faith or evidence.

In fact I now suspect that Behe only continues to concede common descent because he is on record before their “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was enforced.

"Perhaps he discovered that his crackpottery had an unexpected market among Christians and went along for a well-paid ride."

I’ll give you one piece of evidence for my view - no DI member will ever strongly deny YEC.

— harold

deadman_932 said: FL: If you're interested in actual debate at AtBC, then register as a participant/user. I set up your own personal thread there, and you can choose whatever topic you please, while recognizing that (a) there will be little moderation beyond basic civility requirements and (b) people will be free to set forward what evidence and challenges that they wish. It's up to you to determine your degree of focus. It's my contention that neither YEC or ID can hold up as *valid* science. I'll be glad to see you demonstrate that wrong via evidence and without the usual illogic and fallacy-mongering that I've sadly come to expect from cdesign proponentists. Make your first post and we can go from there.

FL: Specks, planks, eyes. You should probably do something about all that timber in your face before lecturing the rest of the commentators on proper sliver removal.

FL,

Still waiting for that evidence for YEC. Other people's beliefs are not evidence. Other people's public pronouncements, (or lack thereof), are not evidence. Evidence is ice core data, tree ring data, genetic data and developmental data. Evidence is what you ain't got.

I have provided evidence. You have not refuted this evidence. This evidence conclusively refutes YEC. And I haven't even gotten to the fossil evidence yet. Debate over!

And you wonder why no real scientist wants to stoop to your pathetic level. If you want to play tennis, you need a tennis racquet. Do you think that Federer would agree to play a tennis match with you if you showed up wth an egg beater? If you want to debate science, you need evidence, try again when you get some.

We're NOT running away from evolutionists. OUR marbles are staying put. We be not skeer'd of the great marketplace of ideas.

Mike: Ah, like Dembski telling his students that they should post at "Darwinist" sites to fulfill partial grade req.'s.

No problemo, that's why Wes put up the "bring them on" masthead bit.

Besides, "FL" could accomplish that at any of dozens of anti-creo sites, including here.

I was just hoping (forlornly?) for FL to make any sort of a viable case, although FL seems to be taking their time. Perhaps FL is constructing an airtight argument that will leave everyone wriggling in the iron fist of his irrefutable evidence. :)

eric said: Just a very brief reply to Harold for clarification: the quote attributed to "Eric" is Eric Finn's, not mine. Though I regularly agree with my namesake :)

harold said: Eric said -

I have been under the impression that Behe accepts most of the interpretations of the evolutionary theory,

Then you have been under a false impression - as you basically reveal in your next phrase...

but he thinks that the proposed mechanisms are not sufficient to explain the observations.

The whole point of the modern theory of evolution is that non-magical mechanisms which we can already understand to a fairly good degree can explain the diversity of life on earth. (We will of course continue to learn much more about the details of those mechanisms.)

Chayanov said:

FL said: We're NOT running away from evolutionists. OUR marbles are staying put. We be not skeer'd of the great marketplace of ideas.

Which explains Dembski's testimony at Dover.

I think you have just set up a situation in which FL can fulfill one of his requirements to become one of the top dogs in his cult.

FL said: Mike is slamming YOU, a fellow evolutionist, for your own AtBC debate suggestion and the few little reasonable guidelines you mentioned. THAT, is how much you evolutionists are (collectively) afraid to debate non-evolutionists when you are on neutral public territory.

FL said:

I think you have just set up a situation in which FL can fulfill one of his requirements to become one of the top dogs in his cult.

Supressing an evil mischievous desire to say, "Arf Arf!", let me offer the following observation: Mike is slamming YOU, a fellow evolutionist, for your own AtBC debate suggestion and the few little reasonable guidelines you mentioned. THAT, is how much you evolutionists are (collectively) afraid to debate non-evolutionists when you are on neutral public territory.

FL,

Still waiting. Why are you so afraid to debate evolutionary biologists? Why don't you produce your evidence? Why don't you at least address the evidence presented to you?

Dan said:

Chayanov said:

FL said: We're NOT running away from evolutionists. OUR marbles are staying put. We be not skeer'd of the great marketplace of ideas.

Which explains Dembski's testimony at Dover.

Good one, Chayanov. "Facts are stubborn things." The interesting thing about FL's original comment is that he seems to be proud that "Our marbles are staying put". In other words, he's proud that he's never going to learn anything because he refuses to change his opinion. Well, if that's what he wants to take pride in, I can't stop him.

FL said: They honestly are running away, eric. It's that boycott thing again.

FL said: We’re NOT running away from evolutionists. OUR marbles are staying put. We be not skeer’d of the great marketplace of ideas.

What a bunch of cowards. When unable to stifle dissent, when in doubt, run, run, run away little atheist and Darwinist.

This just adds weight to the truth that you are more than willing to treat people like garbage who disagree with your worldview of magical mystery mutations.

But when actually challenged one to one, when asked to share the podium with different scientific positions on origins or the failure of Darwinism.

You scurry like rats under the cover of the dark. None of you can stay in the light of day. Sad little Creatures, Dawinist.

LOL,

Perhaps you would like to present some scientific evidence for YEC? Ir do you want to play tennis with an egg beater as well?

"Care for a jelly baby?"

LOLatBrites said: What a bunch of cowards. When unable to stifle dissent, when in doubt, run, run, run away little atheist and Darwinist. This just adds weight to the truth that you are more than willing to treat people like garbage who disagree with your worldview of magical mystery mutations. But when actually challenged one to one, when asked to share the podium with different scientific positions on origins or the failure of Darwinism. You scurry like rats under the cover of the dark. None of you can stay in the light of day. Sad little Creatures, Dawinist.

FL seems to have forgotten how the ID “research” community has boycotted actually doing science. Them might not be skeer’d of the marketplace, but they’s sure skeer’d of peer review.

FL said: My understanding is that a couple of ID'ers have published peer-review article lately. May not even have been the first to do so. Somebody check on that rumor?

ID'ers have been publishing papers for centuries. The problem is, none of them provide any support for ID. There's nothing to support, because ID refuses to formulate a single testable hypothesis. Can't risk falsification when Jebus is what you're really trying to prove, right?

And sorry, stuff that in your mind throws doubt on some aspect of evolution is not support for ID.

But when actually challenged one to one, when asked to share the podium with different scientific positions on origins or the failure of Darwinism.

FL said:

I think you have just set up a situation in which FL can fulfill one of his requirements to become one of the top dogs in his cult.

Supressing an evil mischievous desire to say, "Arf Arf!", let me offer the following observation: Mike is slamming YOU, a fellow evolutionist, for your own AtBC debate suggestion and the few little reasonable guidelines you mentioned. THAT, is how much you evolutionists are (collectively) afraid to debate non-evolutionists when you are on neutral public territory.

By the way, FL, if you're not really as interested in debate as you were earlier indicating, then you could just say so.

I had hoped that you'd leap at the opportunity to not only demonstrate the validity of your views, but also discredit those you oppose. Posting here won't give you a necessarily larger audience than at AtBC. But you seem unwilling to post in a devoted thread , set up just for you.

Why is that?

Oh, and finally -- "LOLatBrites" you're also invited, since you seem to enjoy flinging peanuts (or whatever your post represents) from the gallery.

Be bold and show some courage in your convictions. Try it.

My understanding is that a couple of ID’ers have published peer-review article lately. May not even have been the first to do so. Somebody check on that rumor?

FL, do you agree with the Science Museum's poster stating that the six young people on Noah's ark were all of different races? Do you use the term "negroid" when talking about people of African descent? So many questions, so much silence from FL.

FL said: My understanding is that a couple of ID'ers have published peer-review article lately. May not even have been the first to do so. Somebody check on that rumor?

LOLatBrites said: What a bunch of cowards. When unable to stifle dissent, when in doubt, run, run, run away little atheist and Darwinist. This just adds weight to the truth that you are more than willing to treat people like garbage who disagree with your worldview of magical mystery mutations. But when actually challenged one to one, when asked to share the podium with different scientific positions on origins or the failure of Darwinism. You scurry like rats under the cover of the dark. None of you can stay in the light of day. Sad little Creatures, Dawinist.

FL wrote:

"My understanding is that a couple of ID’ers have published peer-review article lately. May not even have been the first to do so. Somebody check on that rumor?"

Wrong again FL. Get your facts straight. The thread just above this one describes that article and explains exactly why it contains no evidence whatsoever supporting ID. NONE. The term is not even mentioned in the paper. Now if you would care to describe to us exactly what this evidence is and how it supports ID, go right ahead. Until then. all you got is an egg beater. This is tennis man, get a clue.

Are you going to address the evidence I presented or not? If not you are are not in the debate.

How about you LOL? Would you care to describe how the evidence I presented can be reconciled with a young earth hypothesis? If not, you are the only coward here. Darkist.

FL and LOL,

Sine you guys have no evidence of your own and since you are apparently incapable of addressing the evidence I presented, let me make this really simple for you. Just answer the following questions:

1) When do trilobites appear in the fossil record? Are they ever found in the same strata as dinosaurs?

2) When do humans appear in the fossil record? Are they ever found in the same strata as dinosaurs?

Now if you answer no to these questions, then YEC is once again conclusively falsified. If you answer yes. please provide documented evidence, complete with type specimens and the scientific articles describing the specimens.

You do want to participate in the debate right? Or are you really SOL?

By the way FL, you hit a new low even for you. You actually had to scroll past the thread describing the article that you couldn't even be bothered to look for. Nice scholarship.

Debates with Creationists and IDiots are useful to do once or twice to show how they completely ignore how science is supposed to be done in order to prop up their unfounded dogmas. It's all based on the false and blasphemous idea that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore it is infallible, literally true, and a guide to truth and morals for all time. Not only has that been debunked many times and long ago, but attempts to explain away all the evidence of human beings rather than any actual deity giving us what's in the Bible are classic forms of intellectual dishonesty. Once you catch fundamentalists doing that, you realize it has always been their standard M O.

I've never sent in a comment before but after reading throught the preceding discussion and some of the linked comments I felt I had to say something. Sean Carroll, P.Z. Meyers, etc. should reconsider their decision to quit bloggingheads. Yes, I know it was frustrating to watch the discussion between McWhorter and Behe. McWhorter obviously doesn't know much about Biology, but I've read 3 of his books and gone through one of his courses on linguistics and the guy is no dummy. And guess what? Most people are pretty ignorant when it comes to biology. What we won't see now is one of you getting back on bloggingheads with McWhorter and giving him a biology lesson, explaining to him why irreducible complexity is a crackpot idea. You would be doing a big service to a lot of people who might see it. Instead, nobody will see it and the ID folks will have won a small victory. And the excuse that appearing in a venue that also features ideas that you consider worthless somehow lends support to those ideas and diminishes your own credibility doesn't really fly. After all, I've seen your books (and purchased them, by the way) at Barnes and Noble on the same Biology bookshelf along with Behe's books and I don't see any attempt by any of you to have your books removed from the store because having them appear on the same self with Behe's books will somehow give him more crediblity than he deserves. I guess that wouldn't fit in with your business model.

I honestly believe that certain evolutionists (specifically Carroll, Zimmer, Plait, and Myers) have, as a result of their actions, genuinely succeeded in creating a public impression that evolutionists are UNABLE to handle the scientific and scholarly challenges posed by Dr. Michael Behe and other critics of evolution.

By the way, FL, if you’re not really as interested in debate as you were earlier indicating, then you could just say so.

Do you use the term “negroid” when talking about people of African descent?

After all, I’ve seen your books (and purchased them, by the way) at Barnes and Noble on the same Biology bookshelf along with Behe’s books and I don’t see any attempt by any of you to have your books removed from the store because having them appear on the same self with Behe’s books will somehow give him more crediblity than he deserves. I guess that wouldn’t fit in with your business model.

Not acceptable, FL.

"Evolution is incompatible with Christianity" is a debate about doctrine. Doctrine is irrelevant. We are interested in observed evidence from nature, evidence that can be specified and quantified and tested by anyone who seeks it out. Only in that, nothing else.

What is the evidence that living things were created in separate "kinds", by miraculous means, all at some specific date in the past? How does this compare with the evidence that they descended with modification from common ancestors over immense periods of time?

If all you want to do is preach your doctrine that the Bible must be taken literally, and that anyone who doesn't isn't a Christian, forget it. Show us the evidence from nature for miraculous creation and/or rebut evolution with evidence from nature, or stop wasting our time.

there’s a harsh and unpleasant historical connection between evolution and racism

FL wrote (1)You seem to be in a huge hurry, Deadman. (2)Clearly you're done with THIS thread, but I didn't say I was done with it, oh no no. I do sincerely appreciate your kindness in setting up the AtBC thing, a great opportunity, but keep in mind that I'm neither on your payroll nor your time-schedule, (3) so be advised to stay calm and patient if you please, because you already know I will do so even if you don't. [snip other irrelevancies/posing]

Added comments to FL:

If you'd like to discuss terms, such as what might constitute preaching/witnessing or failure to adhere to good-faith standards, feel free to post your points at AtBC. I can lay out my views in detail. Generalized good-faith agreements lay bare individual ethics and morals. Obviously, it's up to you to determine how you present yourself.

I won't be discussing this particular matter further here -- but since I'm also not obliged to treat you with courtesy *here*, I may hang around and see what other remarks I want to make.

FL said:

After all, I’ve seen your books (and purchased them, by the way) at Barnes and Noble on the same Biology bookshelf along with Behe’s books and I don’t see any attempt by any of you to have your books removed from the store because having them appear on the same self with Behe’s books will somehow give him more crediblity than he deserves. I guess that wouldn’t fit in with your business model.

Whoa, watch out baby!! Very timely and powerful example there. I've seen the exact same thing at my own hometown Barnes and Noble. Excellent point. FL

FL said: 1. First, I'm going to combine "Evolution is incompatible with Christianity" and "The Biblical Perspective on Biology" and write about BOTH items under the overall topic "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity." Why combine 'em?

Do you use the term “negroid” when talking about people of African descent?

Not normally, but you may want to read Darwin's "Descent of Man" and Hitler's "Mein Kampf" as soon as possible. No joke--there's a harsh and unpleasant historical connection between evolution and racism. (However, that's a debate for another time and place. Not this thread.)

I've been thinking about what would constitute a fair debate with the creationist side.

I'd suggest the following ground rules;

1. Both sides shall demonstrate they know the difference between abiogenesis (the origin of life) and evolution (changes in life forms over time) and shall keep the debate strictly on the topic of evolution.

2. Each side's arguments must stand on their own merits; lack of evidence for one side shall not be cited as proof of the other. Creationists may not argue "scientists don't know every single step in the entire path of mutations leading from microbes to humans, therefore creationism." Defenders of evolution may not argue "the bible says the earth is flat and has four corners, which we know is wrong, therefore evolution."

3. Neither side shall use arguments from authority, either from religious texts or from scientific writings. Both sides shall limit their arguments to generally accepted facts. Creationists cannot say, for instance, "Proteins are too complicated to have evolved because Michael Behe said so." Nor can evolution defenders say, "DNA is the genetic material because Oswald Avery said so."
For these purposes, a fact shall be deemed a fact if it is frequently mentioned in scientific and technical literature without attribution. Both sides may, for instance, say, "domestic sheep are a different species from domestic goats" because that is generally accepted as a scientific fact-- even though it was first mentioned in the bible.(BTW, I'll bet there are researchers actively working with DNA who don't even know who Oswald Avery was.)

4. Neither side may use alleged bad results from accepting the other side as an argument against the truth of the other side.
Creationists may not argue that evolution is wrong because they believe Darwin led to Hitler and the Holocaust.
Defenders of evolution may not argue that creation is wrong because they believe the biblical religions led to the Cathare Crusades; the sack of Constantinople; the Spanish Conquistadors' slaughter of indigenous Americans including but not limited to the Aztecs, Maya, and Incas; the Anglo-American settlers' slaughter of indigenous Americans including but not limited to the Algonquin, Navaho, and Sioux; numerous European anti-Jewish pograms; numerous European witch hunts; the Salem witchcraft trials; the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre; the Thity Years War; the Six Day War; the destruction of the World Trade Center.
And Hitler and the Holocast.
Also, all the slaughters detailed in the Old Testament. None of that shall be deemed relevant to the debate, so put it right out of your heads.

5. Neither side may use the Gish gallop; both sides shall make one point at a time and allow the other time to respond before proceeding to the next point.

6. Neither side shall use sarcasm and personal invective in attempt to rattle the opponent.

7. If either side refuses to abide by these rules it shall concede the debate.

8. Both sides shall agree that the decision of the (mutually agreed-upon) judges is final.

9. The losing side shall not misquote the judges' decision nor subject the judges to ridicule such as rude fart cartoons.

If FL or any other creationist would be willing to debate on those terms, I say, go for it.

deadman_932 said: Remember my caveats -- start preaching, witnessing or fail to adhere to good-faith discussion/debate standards and all "rules" go out the window. Your choices determine that.

FL,

Scientific debate? I think not. So far you have:

1) Failed to present any hypothesis except: I like YEC

2) Failed to present any evidence whatsoever

3) Failed to address any of the documented evidence presented to you

4) Failed to even answer simple yes/no questions

Look, you have to earn the right to play a seeded professional tennis player. If you show up with an egg beater, he is just going to laugh and walk away. You need two things to play tennis, a racquet and some balls. You have neither. You have demonstrated for all to see exactly why real scientists refuse to debate creationists. Game, set and match. You lose.

As for your desire to discuss why christianity is incompatible with evolution, who cares? At the very best all you can hope to do is convince people that your narrow view of reality and your narrow interpretation of the Bible are incompatible with. Quite frankly, you haven't even earned the right to do that and certainly not here. If you want to reject christianity go right ahead. If you want to reject reality, you need some evidence and you have already demonstrated that you have none.

And by the way, next time you show up here spouting your nonsense, everyone will be perfectly justified in pointing out exactly how atrocious your behavior has been once again.

Dan said:

FL said: My understanding is that a couple of ID'ers have published peer-review article lately. May not even have been the first to do so. Somebody check on that rumor?

This is a thread about debates. You're off-topic, FL. Just a few hours ago you claimed that was a horrible thing.

Hoary: I'm sticking with Deadman's short guidelines on AtBC. Thanks. See you at AtBC on Sunday if that is your intention.

FL said: Let me inject a personal note here as to why I'm starting with this topic. Some of you boys have already experienced either the LOSS of your Christian faith, or at least a SERIOUS EROSION of your Christian faith. And your slide (your back-slide, that is) is partly or indirectly due to the impact of evolution-claims on your own beliefs. You know I'm telling the truth because occasionally your own posts reflect that sad reality. And this erosion is happening to many people, especially teens and young adults, it IS an emergency. So that's why I start with this topic.

Dan said:

FL said: Whoa, watch out baby!! Very timely and powerful example there. I've seen the exact same thing at my own hometown Barnes and Noble. Excellent point. FL

FL ... this is a timely example of what? FL repeatedly replies without letting us know what he's replying to, which simply means that it's hard to follow his objections.

I think it’s far more likely that people reject their religious upbringing because they are taught factually inaccurate material (young earth, six day creation, global flood) in church/Sunday school.

My father was a Presbyterian minister, and I went to Sunday school and church every Sunday of my young life. It wasn't a literal reading of the Bible that got to me - for we never had one. We were taught that the Bible had moral authority, but that it was the product of humans, with the usual human frailties and misunderstandings. That much of it was understandable through metaphor. Specifically, that the stories of the creation and the flood were stories, not literally factual accounts of actual events.

No, I stopped going to Church when I realised that I didn't believe that Jesus was the only son of God, very God, uniquely divine in his own person, of the same substance as the Father, and - here's the thing - neither did he.

Dave Luckett said: My father was a Presbyterian minister... No, I stopped going to Church when I realised that I didn't believe that Jesus was the only son of God, very God, uniquely divine in his own person, of the same substance as the Father, and - here's the thing - neither did he.

A Luca said: I've never sent in a comment before but after reading throught the preceding discussion and some of the linked comments I felt I had to say something. Sean Carroll, P.Z. Meyers, etc. should reconsider their decision to quit bloggingheads. Yes, I know it was frustrating to watch the discussion between McWhorter and Behe. McWhorter obviously doesn't know much about Biology, but I've read 3 of his books and gone through one of his courses on linguistics and the guy is no dummy. And guess what? Most people are pretty ignorant when it comes to biology.

After all, I've seen your books (and purchased them, by the way) at Barnes and Noble on the same Biology bookshelf along with Behe's books and I don't see any attempt by any of you to have your books removed from the store because having them appear on the same self with Behe's books will somehow give him more crediblity than he deserves. I guess that wouldn't fit in with your business model.

Wheels said: Which raises the question of why he [McWhorter] was set up against Behe to begin with, really.

eric said:

Dan said:

FL said: My understanding is that a couple of ID'ers have published peer-review article lately. May not even have been the first to do so. Somebody check on that rumor?

This is a thread about debates. You're off-topic, FL. Just a few hours ago you claimed that was a horrible thing.

To be fair Dan, both Cheryl and I brought up the paucity of ID publications, FL was responding to us.

Oh please, you know full well this not a fair comparison, because the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy, Inc. spends over six times as much year on preventing ID supporters from doing research as it does on initiatives to keep maggots out of canned orange juice.

Amount of real evidence to be presented by FL, (AKA SOL) in his scientific debate:

%0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Why anyone would care about his religious opinions is beyond me. All he is planning on doing is quoting scripture in any "debate" he gets involved in. Apparently he thinks the pope has never done that. Apparently he thinks that no one in the clergy letter project has ever done that. Apparently he thinks that he is the only one who knows what the Bible really says. And he wonders why real scientists can't be bothered with such nonsense. Just wait until he gets that egg beater warmed up.

Assuming, (for the sake of argument only), that he is correct and christianity is indeed incompatible with evolution, the only way to decide which to believe would be based on the evidence. Do ya really think FL is ever actually going to go there? Do ya really think he would have a leg to stand on if he did?

Amount by mass of maggots allowed in canned citrus juice: 0.016%

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said:

eric said: To be fair Dan, both Cheryl and I brought up the paucity of ID publications, FL was responding to us.

Yep; FL was indeed responding to me & Dan.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said:

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said:

eric said: To be fair Dan, both Cheryl and I brought up the paucity of ID publications, FL was responding to us.

Yep; FL was indeed responding to me & Dan.

Ah, crud. Sorry, Dan & eric, to mix you up. The good news is that you should feel *very* special, as I regularly transpose the names of my own kids.

phantomreader42 said:

Dave Luckett said: My father was a Presbyterian minister... No, I stopped going to Church when I realised that I didn't believe that Jesus was the only son of God, very God, uniquely divine in his own person, of the same substance as the Father, and - here's the thing - neither did he.

By "he" do you mean your father the minister, or Jesus?

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said: Amount by mass of mealworm allowed in cornmeal: 0.194% Amount by mass of maggots allowed in canned citrus juice: 0.016% Amount by mass of aphids allowed in frozen broccoli: 0.0005% And thanks to the movie "Ratatouille": 4 or fewer rodent hairs per 100 g apple butter So tell me again how the paucity of ID publications - less than mealworms in cornmeal, less than maggots in citrus juice, slightly more than aphids in frozen broccoli - demonstrates the willingness of ID supporters to show their faces in the arena of scientific competition?

Dave Luckett said: No, I stopped going to Church when I realised that I didn't believe that Jesus was the only son of God, very God, uniquely divine in his own person, of the same substance as the Father, and - here's the thing - neither did he.

eric said:

FL said: You made it sound as if Christian groups were boycotting opportunities for public discussion and dialogue with evolutionists. Your three examples clearly didn't live up to that scenario.

They are refusing to involve themselves with an institution with which they disagree. When party X refuses to involve themselves with institution Y, with which X disagrees, are they being noble or cowardly? Or do you need to know X and Y before making your decisions? That's hypocritical.

We're NOT running away from evolutionists. OUR marbles are staying put. We be not skeer'd of the great marketplace of ideas.

Well, except in scientific publications. And national scientific meetings. And court cases. Essentially, anywhere the audience can be counted on to exercise some critical thinking skills.

FL said: You seem to be in a huge hurry, Deadman. Clearly you're done with THIS thread, but I didn't say I was done with it, oh no no.

stevaroni said:

I think it’s far more likely that people reject their religious upbringing because they are taught factually inaccurate material (young earth, six day creation, global flood) in church/Sunday school.

That's pretty much what did it for me. I still remember being a young lad in the 5th grade in Catholic school, trying to reconcile the biblical story of the flood with the myriad logical flaws readily apparent to a 10 year old.

Well, it is Sunday, September 13. Nothing yet in AtBC from FL. Any time, FL. (I could use some laughs).

Keelyn said: Well, it is Sunday, September 13. Nothing yet in AtBC from FL. Any time, FL. (I could use some laughs).

FL said: It's relatively short but it's so well organized and well-written that it's in a class of its own. They say the theologian RC Sproul converted back to YEC after reading this one.....and that would be no small conversion.

Keelyn wrote:

"Well, it is Sunday, September 13. Nothing yet in AtBC from FL. Any time, FL. (I could use some laughs)."

Who cares? He has had three days to present some evidence here, he choose not to. He has three days to address the evidence presented to him, once again, he choose not to. Now he wants everyone to go to the Bathroom Wall to read about his interpretation of the Bible. Who cares?

Even if he proves conclusively that his brand of christianity is completely incompatible with evolution, he still hasn't done anything at all to challenge the validity of evolution. Therefore, the best he can accomplish is to persuade some people to abandon his brand of christianity. Fine by me.

Funny thing, he already tried this approach and was already shot down. Now he needs three days to prepare, why? I guess he is just going to run away again and hope that everyone forgets about this the next time he tries to peddle his nonsense here. And to think that he criticized scientists for not wanting to participate in debates!

fnxtr said:

Keelyn said: Well, it is Sunday, September 13. Nothing yet in AtBC from FL. Any time, FL. (I could use some laughs).

'Cause he was told No Preaching and No Doctrinal Debate. What's he supposed to do, provide evidence or something? Seriously...

DS said: Now he needs three days to prepare, why? I guess he is just going to run away again and hope that everyone forgets about this the next time he tries to peddle his nonsense here. And to think that he criticized scientists for not wanting to participate in debates!

But what if they use the rope to climb out of the hole they've dug for themselves?

Cheryl wrote:

"In all fairness, FL’s employment or life situation might preclude him from getting back as soon as he should."

In all fairness, I really don't care. If he claimed that he had a really good recipie for chocolate chip cookies I might care more.

He can take all the time he wants. I probably won't read whatever he posts anyway, unless of course he wants to present some scientific evidence. Now what are the odds of that happening?

My point is simply that he has already made this argument. He doesn't need any more time to think about it. His position is uninformed by any evidence, How much time does it take you to come to a decision you have already made? And his points have already been proven to be completely falacious. If he had any answer to those responses he has had weeks to post them already.

He reminds me of that guy who used to claim that he had proof positive of the magic invisible hologram that controlls development and all we had to do was remain patient until he could show us the evidence. We're still waiting for that too I suppose.

Henry J said: But what if they use the rope to climb out of the hole they've dug for themselves?

Henry J said: But what if they use the rope to climb out of the hole they've dug for themselves?

Just a quickie note: If you are willing to (ahem) step off the sidelines and step onto the field, the discussion has begun at AtBC. It's up to you. :)

FL complains that belief in evolution is a major cause of people losing their faith in christianity. He also claims that evolution is incompatible with christianity. Perhaps he should consider the fact that the major reason why belifef in evoution causes people to lose their faith is because they have been told that evolution is incompatible with christianity.!

DS said: FL complains that belief in evolution is a major cause of people losing their faith in christianity. He also claims that evolution is incompatible with christianity. Perhaps he should consider the fact that the major reason why belifef in evoution causes people to lose their faith is because they have been told that evolution is incompatible with christianity.!

The argument put forward by FL simply boils down to the fact that some people have lost their faith once they accepted the validity of evolution. This is not evidence that evolution and christianity are incompatible. At the very best, it is evidence that their particular beliefs were incompatible with evolution and they gave up those beliefs based on the evidence. FL will never be swayed by the evidence, so this is hardly a problem for him. And if this were to be taken as evidence, then the mere existence of only one individual who believes in both evolution and christianity would falsify the hypothesis. Nuf said.

Now, if evolution were proven to be incompatible with milk, it would be real hard to give up milk. But that is clearly what you would have to do, there being much more evidence for evolution than there is for milk. So FL, got milk? Got any evidence for milk? What would it take to make you give up milk? What do you say to those scientists who continue to drink milk without denying the evidence for evolution?

Of course, even if milk is completely incompatible with evolution, that's only whole milk. There's still 2%, 1%, skim, half and half, chocolate, 2% chocolate, etc. Now FL may claim that these aren't really milk, but who cares? If I want to enjoy my 2% chocolate milk and still believe in evolution because of the evidence, then I'm going to do just that. And if I choose not to drink any milk, that's my choice as well, even if it has nothing to do with evolution. FL can drink whatever milk he wants, why should anyone care? He hasn't given any reason to reject evolution and no reason to prefer his type of milk.

DS said: Of course, even if milk is completely incompatible with evolution, that's only whole milk ...

wile wrote:

"Milking it for all it’s worth, I see."

It falls under the heading of tit for tat I guess. :-)

DS said: It falls under the heading of tit for tat I guess. :-)

wile wrote:

"No worries. I’m not having a cow over it."

In a moment of weakness I was tempted to respond that that was udderly ridiculous, but then I thought better of it.

In a moment of weakness I was tempted to respond that that was udderly ridiculous, but then I thought better of it.