Creationist Financing

Posted 31 May 2010 by Richard B. Hoppe

Todd Wood, a young earth creationist at Bryan College, provides summary data on YEC organizations' finances over the 2003-2008 period. There are several interesting things about those data. First, as Wood points out, AIG's share of the creationist dollar grew over that period, from 61.6% ($9M) of the market in 2003 to 68.2% ($22.7M) in 2008. AIG's growth in market share came at the expense of all the other YEC organizations, with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and and the Creation Research Society (CRS), the two elder U.S. creationist organizations, contributing most of the change. While ICR's revenues also increased over those years, from $4,5M to $8.7M, as a percentage of the total creationist dollar it decreased from 30.6% to 26.2% and CRS's percentage declined from 1.7% to 1.0% as its dollar revenues declined from $250K to $230K. The smaller YEC organizations also lost share. Second, Eric Hovind, offspring of jailed tax evader Kent Hovind, entered the list in third place in 2008 with his "GodQuest" (DBA Creation Science Evangelism) at $930K for 2.8% of the creationism market, far behind ICR's $8.7M but well ahead of CRS's $230K. Third (and pretty depressing to see), NCSE's gross revenue as a percentage of AIG's gross revenue has steadily declined over those years, dropping from 7.8% in 2003 to just 5.7% in 2008. In 2008, 85% of NCSE's revenues ($1.1M of $1.3M) came from direct public support--memberships and donations from you and me. While the amount has increased in absolute terms over those years, as a proportion of creationist revenues it has dropped significantly. C'mon, people. Let's put our money where our mouths are. Hat tip to Wood for doing the digging in form 990s.

164 Comments

Wheels · 31 May 2010

What hit me when looking at your line about AiG's numbers is the implication that income for all those orgs as a whole had more than doubled over that five year period, from under $15 million to well over $30 million. Had to look for myself to make sure I wasn't mistaken. And that's just for the YECs; apparently the Old Earthers still raked in increasing amounts of dough, though in significantly smaller amounts.

The biggest jump in Wood's numbers happens between the 2005-6 fiscal years, with the caveat that AiG's reporting method changed so only half their data for the year was available. Still, it's a huge leap. The next biggest jump happens between 2007 and 2008.

It's tempting to try and connect those jumps with their contemporary political landscapes, but that would probably just be a loose association. Just because, for example, Bush uttered his remark about teaching ID in schools in late '05 doesn't mean it triggered a wave of funding and support.

Mike Elzinga · 31 May 2010

Wheels said: The biggest jump in Wood's numbers happens between the 2005-6 fiscal years, with the caveat that AiG's reporting method changed so only half their data for the year was available. Still, it's a huge leap. The next biggest jump happens between 2007 and 2008.

The Dover decision was December 2005; and as I recall, the creationists were really pissed. There has apparently been a “doubling down” on the part of the YECs because they feel they have been sold-out by the IDs. Now they seem to be determined to show how it’s done. AiG has taken an extremely hard-line position, almost kamikaze-like in its attack on science using its own brand of pseudo-science which Ham learned form Morris and Gish and is taking to new levels of brash absurdity. The creationist “museum” was completed in about that time frame and they have just celebrated their millionth visitor. Using admissions rates at about $40 per person, you are looking at something like $40 million dollars of income right there. Ham is a damned good exploiter of fundamentalist markets, and it looks like he is determined to build an empire. We will likely see his political influence begin to approach that of Falwell and Robertson. There is a reason for his "State of the Nation" addresses.

Mike Elzinga · 31 May 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Using admissions rates at about $40 per person, you are looking at something like $40 million dollars of income right there.

I just checked the creation “museum” website. An average ticket would be more like $15. So I stand corrected. The reason I jumped on the $40 is because I happen to know there is a submariner convention in Cincinnati coming up this summer, and one of the events a person can pick is a tour of the “museum” for $45 per person. That must include transportation from the convention site. No doubt Ham is attempting to plug his “museum” with every other event that takes place in the region.

FL · 31 May 2010

So, let's take a minute to focus on NCSE's little gig.

Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC's and apparently even the OEC's) is in a state of decline?

Can't blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what's the reason, amigos?

Mike Elzinga · 31 May 2010

Ah, the strutting "Christian" taunter is back.

Jesse · 31 May 2010

FL said: So, let's take a minute to focus on NCSE's little gig. Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC's and apparently even the OEC's) is in a state of decline? Can't blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what's the reason, amigos? FL

Because, unlike AIG, ICR, etc..., scientists and educators are busy doing science and education instead of focusing on public relations and politics.

Just Bob · 31 May 2010

...and nobody donates to NCSE and counts it as part of their "tithe," or expects it to be totted up on the credit side of their ledger for getting into Heaven. Fear of hellfire can milk plenty of bucks out of the gullible.

Mike Elzinga · 31 May 2010

Jesse said: Because, unlike AIG, ICR, etc..., scientists and educators are busy doing science and education instead of focusing on public relations and politics.

Real research takes time and money; and the results are tangible improvements to technology, health, and the economy. Money going to pseudo-science goes into the pockets of the charlatans who have learned to milk the gullible by making them think they are buying their way into heaven.

SWT · 31 May 2010

Just Bob said: ...and nobody donates to NCSE and counts it as part of their "tithe,"

Actually, I kinda do. When I look at what fraction of my income goes to doing good works, I include my support of NCSE right alongside Habitat for Humanity, etc. NCSE is a powerful voice for the facts in the discussion about modern evolutionary theory, and good theology must be tied to our best understanding of the world as it is and not how we wish it were. Creationist organizations are not voices for the facts in the current social controversy, and their distortions and inaccuracies lead to bad theology and drive people away from the Gospel. Thus, even though it's an easy drive for me, I will not go to the "Creation Museum;" I do not want to put a single cent into the hands of the people who sponsored it.

or expects it to be totted up on the credit side of their ledger for getting into Heaven. Fear of hellfire can milk plenty of bucks out of the gullible.

I am a Presbyterian who takes my church's theology seriously: there is no "ledger" and no choice I can make can compel the Almighty to take a particular action. I think it's a damn shame that so much money has gone to the promotion of creationism that could have instead gone to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and generally comforting the afflicted.

MrG · 31 May 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Ah, [FL] is back.

Just remember -- if he says anything that even SOUNDS like "serious debate" ... step back.

harold · 31 May 2010

FL -

Can’t blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what’s the reason, amigos?

Mike Elzinga already explained this above, but now you can hear it from me. Creationism blew up in Dover in 2005. The increased funding is a panic reaction. But reality always wins in the end.

Frank J · 31 May 2010

Jesse said:
FL said: So, let's take a minute to focus on NCSE's little gig. Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC's and apparently even the OEC's) is in a state of decline? Can't blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what's the reason, amigos? FL
Because, unlike AIG, ICR, etc..., scientists and educators are busy doing science and education instead of focusing on public relations and politics.

That plus the fact that NCSE has been so successful keeping anti-science garbage out of public schools that many people might think that their $30 (for a year's membership) won't make a difference. But that would be a terrible excuse. I have been a member since 1999. Hey, FL, you ought to join too. NCSE gives plenty of exposure to creationist material.

harold · 31 May 2010

Richard B. Hoppe said -

Third (and pretty depressing to see), NCSE’s gross revenue as a percentage of AIG’s gross revenue has steadily declined over those years, dropping from 7.8% in 2003 to just 5.7%

Even one cent to creationism is depressing, and the NCSE deserves more funding. Having said that, this comparison is overly pessimistic. The crap-peddling organizations you mention, along with the DI and a few private Bible colleges, are all the creationists have got. AND they ultimately get virtually nothing for their money. A small proportion is turned into brainwash koolaid and shoveled back at them, and the rest goes directly into the propagandists' pockets. And the koolaid is pretty worthless, because it demonstrably serves only to reinforce the already brainwashed. It has virtually no success in creating new converts; it may create a few, but drives others away. Most of the few public figures who have converted to fundamentalism have significant histories of substance abuse and/or manifest mental instability or intellectual challenge, e.g. Kirk Cameron. Even in some such cases, the "conversion" to creationism is suspect and may be related to political or crass commercial motivations, e.g. Ann Coulter. Not one dime of the funding mentioned is used for anything that in any way actually improves or advances creationist dogma, because by definition, that can't be done. In fact, creationists would arguably be better off keeping their money. Why should they give a dollar to Dembski? All he's going to do is give them back twenty-five cents worth of propaganda that merely tells them what they already "know", and spend the rest on whatever he spends it on. Meanwhile, although the NCSE doesn't have a big budget, actual mainstream science funding is many billions, and although the efficiency with which that money is spent is not necessarily perfect, it is certainly not being wasted on self-serving propaganda, but rather, is being used in ways that improve and advance science.

harold · 31 May 2010

Just Bob -

Fear of hellfire can milk plenty of bucks out of the gullible.

The way I perceive it, it is not fear of, nor necessarily even sincere belief in, hell or heaven, which is the motivator. It is dislike of people who are "different" in some way that drives the enterprise. Of course, this is just my (reasonable and educated) perception.

Rob · 31 May 2010

Fl, Thanks for the inspiration. Our family just donated. As I say to my children. Good job! Rob

FL said: So, let's take a minute to focus on NCSE's little gig. Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC's and apparently even the OEC's) is in a state of decline? Can't blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what's the reason, amigos? FL

Stanton · 31 May 2010

Frank J said: Hey, FL, you ought to join too. NCSE gives plenty of exposure to creationist material.

The only kind of exposure FL and other creationists want for creationist materials is government-enforced indoctrination of children to make them pious, stupid, unreasonably suspicious of science, and most importantly, vulnerable to con-artists for Jesus, under penalty of eternal hellfire.

phantomreader42 · 31 May 2010

When I hear the words "creationist financing", I think of things like repeatedly lying to the landlord, claiming the rent check is in the mail and accusing him of persecuting you when he points out that the only check that arrives is written in crayon on construction paper and misspelled. Or maybe beating up your neighbors, robbing them, then trying to sue them for robbing YOU, and crying persecution when they pull out a video of you stealing their laptop, pawning it, and spending the money on hookers and blow.

Yakivegas · 31 May 2010

Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don't produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go?

And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

Stanton · 31 May 2010

SWT said: I think it's a damn shame that so much money has gone to the promotion of creationism that could have instead gone to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and generally comforting the afflicted.

Either creationists assume that transforming children into brainless zombie-soldiers for Jesus is far, far more important than wasting time by caring the afflicted, or they just don't care about caring for the afflicted. After all, according to the Christians at places like the Discovery Institute and Answers In Genesis, God doesn't care about caring for people: God cares about you giving Him all of your money and all of your undying devotion. It's imperative that the Lord's mortal lieutenants enjoy the greatest, most tackiest creature comforts money can buy, while, simultaneously, it's also important that other people ~~remain~~ live in heartbreaking squalor so they know exactly how Jesus feels, apparently.

Stanton · 31 May 2010

Yakivegas said: Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don't produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go?

To fund propaganda and acquisition of creature comforts, where else?

Paul Burnett · 31 May 2010

Yakivegas said: Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don't produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go? And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

Paul Burnett · 31 May 2010

Yakivegas said: Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don't produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go? And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

Oops - let's try that again... I would expect the Answers In Genesis Creationist (Anti-) Museum's entire income stream is not taxable. And all of its operating expenses are tax deductible. Something's got to be done about that.

RBH · 31 May 2010

FL said: So, let's take a minute to focus on NCSE's little gig. Tell me how come their gross revenue, (relative to the YEC's and apparently even the OEC's) is in a state of decline? Can't blame that development on AIG, after all NCSE is in charge of NCSE. So what's the reason, amigos? FL

In fact, NCSE's revenues, which are mainly from direct public support (memberships and donations), are rising while AIG's revenues from direct public support have been flat. In 2006 AIG derived 72% of its revenue from direct public support, and in 2008 that had dropped to 42%. AIG is making a lot of money from selling stuff. Or look at Eric Hovind's operation. It derives 62% of its revenue from selling stuff. Reasons to Believe, an OEC organization, is more like NCSE in that respect. However, contrary to FL's claim, NCSE's revenues as a percentage of RTB's rose from 29.2% in 2003 to 48.1% in 2008. The numbers are there, FL, and actually doing the calculations helps avoid false claims like that.

RBH · 31 May 2010

Yakivegas said: Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don't produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go? And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

NCSE is a 501(c)3, which means that donations to it are tax deductible.

Crazyharp81602 · 31 May 2010

Lying to riches -- what a trend! Tell lies, get rich off of them. That's the life of the creationists.

Mike Elzinga · 31 May 2010

MrG said:
Mike Elzinga said: Ah, [FL] is back.
Just remember -- if he says anything that even SOUNDS like "serious debate" ... step back.

Not to worry, MrG. He already ran away from a golden oppertunity on another thread. He doesn't get another chance.

Dreamer · 31 May 2010

I'm with Harold. While it's not exactly great news, I don't believe that it's all that depressing. Given the large number of Young Earth Creationists in America (as many as 60 million or more), it was only a matter of time before someone (i.e. Ken Ham) would find a away to exploit the market, and do it in a competent fashion (business-wise), which does seem to be a rather rare occurrence for creationists.

In some ways, it's surprising that there aren't an awful lot more Creation Museum type businesses raking in the dough all over the country, and I would not be shocked if Ham announces plans for a second outlet for peddling his nonsense in the near future.

So I think the key question here is how much of a market is there for this type of stuff? One or two major attractions can draw from a massive customer base, and you only need a small percentage who are keen enough to travel long distances to get there to make a nice profit. But once you start seeing multiple outlets all competing with each other for the believer's dough, that's when you see whether there is any sustained growth available in that marketplace.

So, at the moment, AiG is more of an anomaly than a troubling portent of things to come, and he's in kind of an odd situation. You would think that secular entrepreneurs would by eying Ham's success and looking at how they can exploit the same market he is tapping into, but perhaps the fear of being seen peddling superstitious nonsense to America's children is keeping them away.

henry · 1 June 2010

Yakivegas said: Maybe FL can explain to us why AIG, ICR, CRS and their brethren don't produce or fund any actual research. Donations are increasing, so where does the money go? And on a related topic, do the listed organizations benefit from any tax breaks (since they are often part of church ministries)?

The ICR website lists current and past research projects. Click Departments for the research section.

Steve P. · 1 June 2010

Yeah, I kinda feel the same way about the Hadron Collider. How much did it cost, again? Four Billion? That cost every man, woman, and child on Earth $0.65. For some of us though, $0.65 pays for a day's worth of food. But then again, I guess searching for evidence which could demonstrate that quantum particles are in fact things is worth 4 billion bills.

I think it’s a damn shame that so much money has gone to the promotion of creationism that could have instead gone to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and generally comforting the afflicted.

Frank J · 1 June 2010

The only kind of exposure FL and other creationists want for creationist materials is government-enforced indoctrination of children to make them pious, stupid, unreasonably suspicious of science, and most importantly, vulnerable to con-artists for Jesus, under penalty of eternal hellfire.
— Stanton

Of course (though some like Medved and Stein are not too keen on the Jesus part). They never recommend creationist material that is accompanied by a real critical analysis. When they have the chutzpah to accuse us pf "censorship", the proper response is not to just deny it but to show clearly who really is promoting censorship.

Paul Burnett · 1 June 2010

henry said: The ICR website lists current and past research projects.

Way down the page (http://www.icr.org/research/): "Hundreds of scientists from around the world affirm creation..." Wow - out of the million or so "scientists" (however loosely defined) around the planet, "hundreds...affirm creation" - a pitifully small fraction of one per cent of scientists. Anybody know how the Dishonesty Institute is coming on their list of evolution doubters? They aren't anywhere near one per cent yet, are they?

Dave Luckett · 1 June 2010

henry said: The ICR website lists current and past research projects. Click Departments for the research section.

Research, henry? Not one of the damnfool "papers" on that site has been peer-reviewed. ICR will never allow peer comments to appear. This is not research. It's propaganda, meant to deceive the gullible. I actually waded through the list back to 2003. At that point nausea overcame me, but in that time ICR has published nothing that actually qualifies as research at all. I found only one actual originally derived datum, namely that you can interbreed snakes from two selected different genera (so long as you mislead the snakes) and derive fertile hybrids. I'll leave it up to the actual biochemists to explain why some snakes can do this - I seem to recall that PZM took this on some time back. For the record, it doesn't mean that snakes were created 6000 years ago. The rest of it was all vapourware - conjectures, "proposals for research", attempts to spin research done by real scientists, crapola "computer models", insane speculations ("accelerated atomic decay"; "God created all water with the spin of its hydrogen nucleii all aligned in one direction", f'Chrissake.). Four pieces weren't about scientific subjects at all, and are best described as very unrigorous bad theology. The high point was the first sentence of the paper "Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory" Aug 3, 2008 (This was one of the phony-baloney computer modelling attempts): "Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent fatal flaws which are well-known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists and the public." I suppose it's possible that ICR's fanbase would swallow the bare-faced lie that there's an entire field of science that repudiates the Theory of Evolution, but remains silent about it. Creationists are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that; but if you think about it for a moment, to nurture that sort of ignorance you need to be locked into paranoid conspiracy delusions as well, a dark fantasy of power and dominance. A demon-haunted world, indeed.

Stanton · 1 June 2010

Steve P. said: Yeah, I kinda feel the same way about the Hadron Collider. How much did it cost, again? Four Billion? That cost every man, woman, and child on Earth $0.65. For some of us though, $0.65 pays for a day's worth of food. But then again, I guess searching for evidence which could demonstrate that quantum particles are in fact things is worth 4 billion bills.
I think it’s a damn shame that so much money has gone to the promotion of creationism that could have instead gone to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and generally comforting the afflicted.

How is this pitiful attempt at insulting actual scientists supposed to neutralize the fact that creationists have not produced any results with the mounds of money at their disposal? Why do you think that the Hadron Collider is a big money pit, even though it allows scientists to produce and research results? What research or results has the Discovery Institute produced that shows undeniable evidence of an Intelligent Designer, or that Intelligent Design is a science, or even that Intelligent Design proponents understand or care about science? What research or results have the ICR or Answers In Genesis produced with the fortunes at their disposal?

harold · 1 June 2010

Dave Luckett -

I found only one actual originally derived datum, namely that you can interbreed snakes from two selected different genera (so long as you mislead the snakes) and derive fertile hybrids.

Which is actually evidence against creationism, of course. Taxonomic divisions are still largely based on two centuries of morphologic observations. But the current mainstream view is, essentially, that speciation is at least sometimes the result of geographic or behavioral isolation of fractions of formerly interbreeding populations. In other words, the mainstream biological view predicts that genetic isolation will often follow some type of geographic or behavioral isolation. Hence, defined species or genera that don't actively mate in the wild may sometimes be able to produce fertile offspring.

Frank J · 1 June 2010

Paul Burnett said:
henry said: The ICR website lists current and past research projects.
Way down the page (http://www.icr.org/research/): "Hundreds of scientists from around the world affirm creation..." Wow - out of the million or so "scientists" (however loosely defined) around the planet, "hundreds...affirm creation" - a pitifully small fraction of one per cent of scientists. Anybody know how the Dishonesty Institute is coming on their list of evolution doubters? They aren't anywhere near one per cent yet, are they?

Besides, "affirm creation" is an awfully vague choice of words for an organization that denies all but one particular account of "creation," including others claimed to be "the" literal interpretations of Genesis. Also, you might recall that a survey of the DI's "dissenters" suggested that only ~10% of them deny commom descent. And probably most that do are OECs anyway.

MrG · 1 June 2010

harold said: In other words, the mainstream biological view predicts that genetic isolation will often follow some type of geographic or behavioral isolation. Hence, defined species or genera that don't actively mate in the wild may sometimes be able to produce fertile offspring.

To repeat an earlier comment, it would take Intelligent Design to prevent speciation. Genetic drift of populations is an observable fact, and unless some agent put a stop to the drift somehow, sooner or later the drift will be so great that the two populations cannot interbreed.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 1 June 2010

RBH said: NCSE is a 501(c)3, which means that donations to it are tax deductible.

Damn! I don't think I knew that this last April 15. Thanks for the reminder. I owe you a beer.

harold · 1 June 2010

MrG -

To repeat an earlier comment, it would take Intelligent Design to prevent speciation.

Yes, really like that point. What was remarkable about Darwin and Wallace was that they were able to deduce much of what was going on the hard way - by observing organisms "top down". Now that we know the molecular basis of genetics, it's fairly clear to any honest observer that biological evolution is inevitable.

raven · 1 June 2010

A while back, a thread on PT estimated the total propaganda expenditures of the US creationists at ca. $50 million/year.

According to the Wood site, YECs took in 33 million.

The Dishonesty Institute takes in ca. 4 million.

Not sure how much the OECs take in or how much the fundie cults themselves spend on pushing creationism.

Or whether to lump in Biologos with the creationists. The Templeton foundation is more an opponent of creationism than a purveyor.

Given the uncertainties of determining the total creationist propaganda budget, the ballpark figure of $50 million a year is about right. Very little if any is actually spent on scientific research. Because creationism is propaganda, extremist right wing politics, and cult religion, not science.

FL · 1 June 2010

Not to worry, MrG. He already ran away from a golden oppertunity on another thread.

Lots of golden opportunities in this forum. Not always lots of time, though. Including today. (For example, I would have loved to put in some comments on the TBN thread but there was no time at all. My favorite contemporary Christian song just happens to be the one that got some of you guys so upset--Carman's "There is a God.") That is the totally perfect Creation song, perfectly sung for the ages. *** Anyway, sincere thanks for your various answers to my NSCE question. Enjoyed reading them, honestly. Btw, kudos to SWT for honestly fessing up that he's effectively doing a 'tithe' to NCSE. (After all, the opening post DID directly ask you Pandas to pass the collection plate, so ya might as well be honest that it's just like (to borrow a couple words from evolutonist Michael Ruse) "a religion" with you guys.)

fnxtr · 1 June 2010

Heh.

Your jabs don't even come near the mark anymore, FL.

Boring.

MrG · 1 June 2010

FL said: Not always lots of time, though. Including today.

I hope whatever business it is, business is good. The more time spent doing something useful, the less time available for doing something not useful.

Frank J · 1 June 2010

That is the totally perfect Creation song, perfectly sung for the ages.
— FL

Nah. A totally perfect Creation song for today's creationist would be a tear-in-your-beer "I Caught God in My Irreducibly Complex Mousetrap (and I Think I Might Have Killed Him)."

raven · 1 June 2010

Way down the page (http://www.icr.org/research/): “Hundreds of scientists from around the world affirm creation…”

Almost none in other words. Far less than 1%. The number of scientists in the biosciences alone in the USA is estimated at 1/2 to 1 million. So the world number would be some multiple, say 3 million bioscientists. This doesn't include physical scientists, chemists, physicists and so on. When one looks at creationist's lists of "scientists" very few are in relevant fields. A lot of them are engineers or computer programmers. Many are old and some are now dead. Scientists are prone to the same maladies as anyone else. You could find more scientists in drug and alcohol rehab programs or mental hospitals than on creationist lists of supporters.

mplavcan · 1 June 2010

Ah, FL puts a penny on the track in token of his promise to derail the thread later with a verbal diarrhea of inanity, ignorance and ideological dogmatism. For now he "works", but later, we are promised, he will get out the red nose, the unicycle, the pointy hat and floppy shoes, the big buttons, the grease paint, and especially the loud squeaky-horn and entertain us all, armed with the "word of God." Which might explain more than anything why NCSE is not better funded. Why would anyone give money to fight something as inane as FL? Most of my friends and colleagues can't see a point in even paying attention to such idiocy, let alone wasting time fighting it. It is only when the damage is done that folks wake up and start to realize how much destruction someone like FL can do. Especially when they get on a school board, or threaten teachers, or get elected to a political office.

FL said:
Not to worry, MrG. He already ran away from a golden oppertunity on another thread.
Lots of golden opportunities in this forum. Not always lots of time, though. Including today. (For example, I would have loved to put in some comments on the TBN thread but there was no time at all. My favorite contemporary Christian song just happens to be the one that got some of you guys so upset--Carman's "There is a God.") That is the totally perfect Creation song, perfectly sung for the ages. *** Anyway, sincere thanks for your various answers to my NSCE question. Enjoyed reading them, honestly. Btw, kudos to SWT for honestly fessing up that he's effectively doing a 'tithe' to NCSE. (After all, the opening post DID directly ask you Pandas to pass the collection plate, so ya might as well be honest that it's just like (to borrow a couple words from evolutonist Michael Ruse) "a religion" with you guys.)

MrG · 1 June 2010

Frank J said: Nah. A totally perfect Creation song for today's creationist would be ...

Hmm, let's see, let's consider what they might be from the archive of real music. For starters, how about "Straighten Up And Fly Right"? ------------------------------------------------------- Straighten up and fly right Straighten up and fly right Ain't no use in divin' What's the use in jivin' Straighten up and fly right

fnxtr · 1 June 2010

MrG said:
Frank J said: Nah. A totally perfect Creation song for today's creationist would be ...
Hmm, let's see, let's consider what they might be from the archive of real music. For starters, how about "Straighten Up And Fly Right"? ------------------------------------------------------- Straighten up and fly right Straighten up and fly right Ain't no use in divin' What's the use in jivin' Straighten up and fly right

"What a fool believes, No wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, Is always better than nothing..."

phantomreader42 · 1 June 2010

FL said:
Not to worry, MrG. He already ran away from a golden oppertunity on another thread.
Lots of golden opportunities in this forum. Not always lots of time, though. Including today.

So, FL wants to pretend he's got some magical argument that will show him to be something other than a vacous troll, but somehow he never has time to present it. Of course, the reason he never finds the time to present anything of substance is that he knows he's got nothing and he's too lazy and cowardly to admit it.

Stanton · 1 June 2010

phantomreader42 said:
FL said:
Not to worry, MrG. He already ran away from a golden oppertunity on another thread.
Lots of golden opportunities in this forum. Not always lots of time, though. Including today.
So, FL wants to pretend he's got some magical argument that will show him to be something other than a vacous troll, but somehow he never has time to present it. Of course, the reason he never finds the time to present anything of substance is that he knows he's got nothing and he's too lazy and cowardly to admit it.

In other words, the same blasphemous inanity as usual.

MrG · 1 June 2010

fnxtr said: "What a fool believes, No wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, Is always better than nothing..."

Should'a put in the title guy, I had to hunt that down ... ah, haven't heard the Doobie Bros for years. And what about the Beatles, "Nowhere Man": "He's a real nowhere man, Sitting in his nowhere land, Making all his nowhere plans for nobody. He's as blind as he can be, Just sees what he wants to see, Nowhere Man can you see me at all?"

Mike Elzinga · 1 June 2010

fnxtr said: Heh. Your jabs don't even come near the mark anymore, FL. Boring.

Every time he goes off his meds his “Christian” libido for taunting goes off scale. In addition to getting back on his meds, he needs to take an anaphrodisiac and a cold shower.

SWT · 1 June 2010

Steve P. said: Yeah, I kinda feel the same way about the Hadron Collider. How much did it cost, again? Four Billion? That cost every man, woman, and child on Earth $0.65. For some of us though, $0.65 pays for a day's worth of food. But then again, I guess searching for evidence which could demonstrate that quantum particles are in fact things is worth 4 billion bills.
I think it’s a damn shame that so much money has gone to the promotion of creationism that could have instead gone to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and generally comforting the afflicted.

*sigh* Answers in Genesis overtly claims it mission is to witness to the truth of the Gospel, but they use the funds to promote assertions that are objectively false. Answers in Genesis overly claims that they exist to deliver the message of the Gospel, but they don't do the things that Jesus clearly considered central to the Gospel. Instead, they do things that ultimately work against the Gospel rather than for it. That's why I made the statement you quoted. The people who asked for money to construct and operate the LHC are doing what they said they planned to do. Whether or not you think the LHC is a worthy project is irrelevant to the point that the LHC team is behaving honestly, which is more than I can say for the creationist organizations that are mentioned in RBH's post.

SWT · 1 June 2010

Btw, kudos to SWT for honestly fessing up that he's effectively doing a 'tithe' to NCSE. (After all, the opening post DID directly ask you Pandas to pass the collection plate, so ya might as well be honest that it's just like (to borrow a couple words from evolutonist Michael Ruse) "a religion" with you guys.)

Ahh, distortion from FL. I suppose it's nice to know that there are some things one can count on. To be clear: I consider it my Christian responsibility to, as I am able, support charitable organizations regardless of whether or not they are religious. For example, I make relatively small donations to support certain medical research organizations, the Nature Conservancy, Habitat for Humanity, local arts organizations (esp. the symphony), and NSCE -- in addition to my donations to my local congregation. This is all what I consider to be part of a "tithe." That does not mean that I consider NCSE to be a religious organization, any more than I consider my local symphony orchestra to be a religious organization.

FL · 1 June 2010

Ah, FL puts a penny on the track in token of his promise to derail the thread later with a verbal diarrhea of inanity, ignorance and ideological dogmatism.

Whoaaaa, boys! What's THAT all about? I was honestly just curious as to possible reasons for NSCE's money dip, since it wasn't already specified in the OP. I would have asked the same question if it had been AIG or ICR. Just curious. (Besides, nickels work better.) *** Come to think of it, however, you've got to admit something: SOMETHING about the TBN show and Carman's litle song, somehow got under many of your skins, even though YEC and OEC creationism is illegal and there's no chance in the foreseeable future of making it legal outside of God's help. So why you guys so stressed? You're on top, you rule the system, you call America's shots, so why did that one Christian TV show and song make you upset? *** But of course, you already know why that's so. Stated simply, court decisions like Edwards and Kitzmiller don't have ANY jurisdiction over people's hearts and minds, do they? It's a wide open field, right here and now, and there's nothing Dover can do about it. Hearts and minds are really where the war is being fought, and it's in those two areas--not the courts, not even the schools--where this war will be ultimately won or lost. So that's the real deal, isn't it? You know, deep down inside, that people can get fired up by all that inspiration AND information. Inspiration and Information constitutes the most volatile mixture in the universe, doesn't it? Could pose a little threat to evolutionary beliefs, no? *** So, there's a lot happening right now, things that Dover can't touch. Songs like "There is a God" make it clear to you guys that you haven't actually won the game after all. It's a spiritual thing, not just a scientific thing. True, you can legally and politically defeat the "creationists" if you work hard at it--everybody knows that already. You've done it before, you'll do it again. But in the end, your fight is actually with the Creator God himself, and THAT's what has got you collectively scared and upset. Think about it: You're even monitoring Christian TV shows in your spare time, you even get mad over little creation hymns that don't bother anybody. But that's understandable. For if HE one day sticks a can of gas and a pack of matches to your evolutionary house of cards in the minds of the masses, then what? It'll be BURN BABY BURN for your chosen evolutionist religion, regardless of current court decisions!! Ummm....wouldn't you agree? FL

mplavcan · 1 June 2010

Clown make up applied, and here he is folks wheeling into the center ring! Let's have a big cheer and a hearty laugh for our most beloved troll-clown.....FL! Fresh in to derail another thread, exactly as predicted! And do you notice how he blithely wonders at what I said, and then immediately performs exactly as predicted!

MrG · 1 June 2010

FL said: But in the end, your fight is actually with the Creator God himself, and THAT's what has got you collectively scared and upset.

Huh? Guy, whether anyone firmly believes in God or absolutely does not is about as much a matter of interest to me as to whether they like Pepsi or Coke.

fnxtr · 1 June 2010

Yawn.

So anyway, about this creationist financing thing...

Mike Elzinga · 1 June 2010

mplavcan said: Clown make up applied, and here he is folks wheeling into the center ring! Let's have a big cheer and a hearty laugh for our most beloved troll-clown.....FL! Fresh in to derail another thread, exactly as predicted! And do you notice how he blithely wonders at what I said, and then immediately performs exactly as predicted!

It's gotta be sexual with him: he really gets turned on by taunting. Look at the big "Christian" erection.

FL · 1 June 2010

Oh, it's no big deal, guys. The Christian TV show is over now, the one little creation hymn has been sung (for years now), and your worried reactions to both items are permanently recorded in a thread hundreds of posts long. People are free to draw their own conclusions as to what's going on there spiritually. *** As for NCSE, I also noticed that the OP mentioned that NCSE's revenue has actually increased in absolute terms over the years in question. And $1.3 million? Doesn't sound like they're hurting, does it? In fact, Todd Wood said it best:

What's interesting about this is that the NCSE's income has also doubled over these seven years. Thus, it's not just the creationist market that's growing, the entire market for the creation/evolution culture war has grown dramatically. It's become a self-sustaining industry.

And so it has. So pass the plate for NCSE if you want to; people will also continue to contribute to AIG and other organizations as well. That's that, it would seem. FL

Jesse · 1 June 2010

Whoaaaa, boys! What’s THAT all about? I was honestly just curious as to possible reasons for NSCE’s money dip, since it wasn’t already specified in the OP.

There he goes twisting things again. They actually received more money than in the past - it's just a smaller percentage of what the Creationists brought in.

But of course, you already know why that’s so. Stated simply, court decisions like Edwards and Kitzmiller don’t have ANY jurisdiction over people’s hearts and minds, do they?

Sure, if you don't think that having a hive of whack jobs on public record lying their asses off something that might sway hearts and minds. But hey, what do I know? Oh, that's right, I know that kids are leaving fundamentalist churches by the droves to never come back when they turn 18! Now, why do you suppose that is?

Jesse · 1 June 2010

That should read "lying their asses off to be something..."

Stanton · 1 June 2010

FL said: But that's understandable. For if HE one day sticks a can of gas and a pack of matches to your evolutionary house of cards in the minds of the masses, then what? It'll be BURN BABY BURN for your chosen evolutionist religion, regardless of current court decisions!! Ummm....wouldn't you agree? FL

Where did you learn that evolution is a religion? In the Biology class that you got a "B" in?

Dale Husband · 1 June 2010

FL said: But in the end, your fight is actually with the Creator God himself, and THAT's what has got you collectively scared and upset. Think about it: You're even monitoring Christian TV shows in your spare time, you even get mad over little creation hymns that don't bother anybody. But that's understandable. For if HE one day sticks a can of gas and a pack of matches to your evolutionary house of cards in the minds of the masses, then what? It'll be BURN BABY BURN for your chosen evolutionist religion, regardless of current court decisions!! Ummm....wouldn't you agree? FL

Unlike you, FL, I'm not inclined to blame God for Creationist fraud and bigotry. That's entirely your doing and it's pathetic blasphemy.

Stanton · 1 June 2010

FL said: But in the end, your fight is actually with the Creator God himself, and THAT's what has got you collectively scared and upset.

When did God say that He wanted people, like creationists, to lie for Him, deny reality, and have other people put words into His mouth for Him?

Think about it: You're even monitoring Christian TV shows in your spare time, you even get mad over little creation hymns that don't bother anybody.

I see you are lying again in order to slander us.

But that's understandable. For if HE one day sticks a can of gas and a pack of matches to your evolutionary house of cards in the minds of the masses, then what? It'll be BURN BABY BURN for your chosen evolutionist religion, regardless of current court decisions!! Ummm....wouldn't you agree? FL

Last I heard, committing sins in Jesus' name, like the way you lie, slander us, lie about slander in order to mock us, mock us for wanting truth instead of dogma in science education, demand that we commit apostasy simply because we don't agree with your lies, using Jesus to act like a snotty, uncivilized asshole, etc, etc, are mortal sins. After all, evolution is not a religion no matter how many times you repeat your lies.

Alex H · 1 June 2010

And FL continues to boldly red shift away from logic an reality.

Alex H · 1 June 2010

MrG said:
fnxtr said: "What a fool believes, No wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, Is always better than nothing..."
Should'a put in the title guy, I had to hunt that down ... ah, haven't heard the Doobie Bros for years. And what about the Beatles, "Nowhere Man": "He's a real nowhere man, Sitting in his nowhere land, Making all his nowhere plans for nobody. He's as blind as he can be, Just sees what he wants to see, Nowhere Man can you see me at all?"

This deserves some Alan Parsons Project "If I had a mind to I wouldn't want to think like you And if I had time to I wouldn't want to talk to you I don't care What you do I wouldn't want to be like you"

MrG · 1 June 2010

Oh and I had to think of Mose Allison's "Your Mind Is On Vacation":

"Sitting there yakkin' right in my face

Coming on like you own the place

If silence was golden

You couldn't raise a dime

Cause your mind is on vacation and your mouth is working overtime

You're quoting figures, you're dropping names

You're telling stories, you're playing games

You always laugh when things ain't funny

You try to sound like you don't need money

If talk was criminal, you'd lead a life of crime

Cause your mind is on vacation and your mouth is working overtime"

SWT · 1 June 2010

I'll ignore the misrepresentations in your post to focus on this comment:

FL said: But that's understandable. For if HE one day sticks a can of gas and a pack of matches to your evolutionary house of cards in the minds of the masses, then what? It'll be BURN BABY BURN for your chosen evolutionist religion, regardless of current court decisions!! Ummm....wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not agree. The one would lead the masses to believe something contrary to the truth is not the One I worship. All HE need do is provide (or lead someone to) objective evidence that modern evolutionary theory is wrong and the vast majority of mainstream scientists will change their assessment of MET without violent revolution. I know I would. It doesn't even require divine intervention, just some solid scientific data. If your friends at AIG/ICR/DI are correct about how the universe as we know it came to be, all they need do is gather objective evidence that they are correct and publish it. Instead, they spend their resources repeating long refuted untruths. The fact that they have chosen to stick with this path tells me that they either do not understand the scientific process or they know that objective observation does not support their position.

SWT · 1 June 2010

To clarify my last post -- by HE I was referring, of course, to the Almighty as in FL's post. The antecedent wasn't clear, since the first sentence refers to *ahem* someone else ...

fnxtr · 1 June 2010

MrG said:
fnxtr said: "What a fool believes, No wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, Is always better than nothing..."
Should'a put in the title guy,

Songwriting 101: always sing the title in the chorus. Just ask Bryan Adams.

fnxtr · 1 June 2010

Alex H said: And FL continues to boldly red shift away from logic an reality.

...and people continue to nourish and encourage his narcissism.

mplavcan · 1 June 2010

The creationist financing issue is embedded within the troll's behavior. AiG is raising money by aggressively promoting itself as a fundamentalist conservative Christian mission defending God and Jesus and Faith from the heathens. "Scientific" creationism gets less money because it just can't rally the troops with the scare tactics the way that Ken Hamm can do it. The "scientific" side of AiG is prominently featured, but always as secondary to the Gospel message. This, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) was one of the fundamental reasons that Ken Hamm broke with ICR in the first place. Meanwhile, on the science side, most of the public and especially the scientific community just cannot see how something as ludicrous and inane as the group represented by the FL Troll would require any funding to combat. We might as well ask folks to donate to a society fighting Flat Earthers. It just doesn't compute. But the difference is that the creationists do real damage, because they whip up the fear that science is a tangible threat to the Faith. AiG raises money by playing on ignorance, fear and insecurity. NCSE has to appeal to reason, and reason tells us that there is nothing to be taken seriously in creationism. There isn't. It is not creationism, but the creationists who are the problem. Like the FL-troll. They couldn't give a damn about data and facts and science. They have a death-grip on "truth" (TM), and the entire "debate" is nothing more than a game tying to rally the troops and sway opinion. Money is raised by whipping up the faithful into a panic, and used to further whip up more panic and generate more and more propaganda. Just look at the FL-troll's posts. Cheer-leading, jeering, taunting and sneering. Utterly devoid of content, but good for generating contributions.

fnxtr said:
Alex H said: And FL continues to boldly red shift away from logic an reality.
...and people continue to nourish and encourage his narcissism.

Dave Luckett · 2 June 2010

I finally went and looked up the "Christian song" ://www.ap0s7le.com/list/song/3174/Carman/There_Is_a_God/> that FL was blatting about. It's one of them "little creation hymns that don't bother anyone."

Well, they bother me. Apart from being wretched verse, this is not a hymn to creation, it's a celebration of blowhard ignorance. Distance is not measured in "degrees", and we wouldn't disintegrate if we were a few thousand miles closer to the sun, nor freeze if we were a little further away. The Earth is not at the centre of the Universe. There is nothing perfect about the "23 degree" angle of its axis to the perpendicular of the orbital plane. (Not only isn't it exactly 23 degrees, it constantly changes, slowly.) The rays of the sun are not equally distributed on Earth - obviously. Life itself created the nitrogen-oxygen mix, adapting to it as it went, so of course it suits us. The tides don't drag impurities from the seas. The atomic clock is not set by the way we move (what a piece of nonsense). Atheists have created many an artistic masterpiece, and many more great understandings of the Universe, far beyond the foolish ignorance of this overblown piece of piffle.

I nearly threw up at "If we allow our minds to drink in all the truth that surrounds the truth that just surrounds us, creation itself with help us understand." Yeah, and the whichness of the whyfore is trancendentally scrutible, which is the whatness of the whole enchillada, man.

The Universe is complex, but there is no evidence for its design. There is no evidence for a design or a plan, and therefore no necessity for a designer.

All the rest is shouting for the Lord, but at a sub-literate level, and nothing more.

But here's the thing: these falsehoods are believed. People send money.

Yes, it bothers me that people are so ignorant, so gullible, and so easily parted from their money. That they have no sensibility, and no goddam sense. I want to be able to rely on human wisdom, knowledge and skill. Stuff like this profoundly stupid ditty is a constant reminder to me that I can't.

Rolf Aalberg · 2 June 2010

harold said: MrG -
To repeat an earlier comment, it would take Intelligent Design to prevent speciation.
Yes, really like that point. What was remarkable about Darwin and Wallace was that they were able to deduce much of what was going on the hard way - by observing organisms "top down". Now that we know the molecular basis of genetics, it's fairly clear to any honest observer that biological evolution is inevitable.

Can't we take that even one step further: Without evolution, there wouldn't be much life on Earth.

SWT · 2 June 2010

Dave Luckett said: I finally went and looked up the "Christian song" ://www.ap0s7le.com/list/song/3174/Carman/There_Is_a_God/> that FL was blatting about. It's one of them "little creation hymns that don't bother anyone."

From the lyrics ...

93 million miles from the blistering surface of the sun
Hangs the planet earth.
A rotating sphere perfectly suspended in the center of the universe. ... Though they silently orbit, the sun, the moon, the stars
are like celestial evangelists above.
Who circle the earth every 24 hours
shouting in every languages that there is a God.

Is Carman a geocentrist?

Frank J · 2 June 2010

Is Carman a geocentrist?
— SWT

Not necessarily. Music lyrics are not always meant to be taken literally. Think of "Fly me to the moon, and let me play among the stars..." But I am curious whether our resident "YEC" FL is. Hey, FL, care to answer? Have you heard of Tony Pagano, a Talk.Origins regular, who once claimed to be an OEC, but is now playing "don't ask, don't tell" with the "when" questions, and peddling a geocentric "theory." Why not put those millions spent on creationist propaganda (aka bearing false witness) to good use by having healthy debates with each other, like real scientists do?

Frank J · 2 June 2010

Speaking of Creation songs:

He took a hundred pounds of clay,
And then He said, "Hey listen,"
"I'm gonna fix this world today,"
"Because I know what's missin',"

eric · 2 June 2010

FL said: It's a wide open field, right here and now, and there's nothing Dover can do about it. Hearts and minds are really where the war is being fought, and it's in those two areas--not the courts, not even the schools--where this war will be ultimately won or lost.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. If you really believed your own line, why have creationists spent the last 40 years attempting to stick creationism in school curricula? I mean, if schooling doesn't matter to hearts and minds, why not agree with us to have mainstream science taught in HS science classes and teach your creationism at home? You fight to get school curricula changed precisely because you can't even believe your own BS.

But that's understandable. For if HE one day sticks a can of gas and a pack of matches to your evolutionary house of cards in the minds of the masses, then what? It'll be BURN BABY BURN for your chosen evolutionist religion, regardless of current court decisions!! Ummm....wouldn't you agree?

It is amazing to me how fundamentalists have taken the lessons from a person who taught pacifism, love, charity, and forgiveness being the highest virtues, and turned it into some Quentin Tarantino-like revenge fantasy. You should be ashamed of yourself.

SWT · 2 June 2010

Frank J said:
Is Carman a geocentrist?
— SWT
Not necessarily. Music lyrics are not always meant to be taken literally.

Don't give me any of that interpretational stuff. I'm going on the plain, literal meaning of the text, since I've been assured that that's the only way to infer true meaning.

fnxtr · 2 June 2010

Wow. Even aside from the content, that is some deeply, deeply clumsy writing. I guess it doesn't matter how mediocre your art is, as long as you say the right things.

Frank J · 2 June 2010

Don’t give me any of that interpretational stuff. I’m going on the plain, literal meaning of the text, since I’ve been assured that that’s the only way to infer true meaning.
— SWT

So that one Temptation guy really can turn a gray sky bluer, and the other really can make it rain whenever he wants it to? ;-)

phantomreader42 · 2 June 2010

eric said:
FL said: It's a wide open field, right here and now, and there's nothing Dover can do about it. Hearts and minds are really where the war is being fought, and it's in those two areas--not the courts, not even the schools--where this war will be ultimately won or lost.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. If you really believed your own line, why have creationists spent the last 40 years attempting to stick creationism in school curricula? I mean, if schooling doesn't matter to hearts and minds, why not agree with us to have mainstream science taught in HS science classes and teach your creationism at home? You fight to get school curricula changed precisely because you can't even believe your own BS.
But that's understandable. For if HE one day sticks a can of gas and a pack of matches to your evolutionary house of cards in the minds of the masses, then what? It'll be BURN BABY BURN for your chosen evolutionist religion, regardless of current court decisions!! Ummm....wouldn't you agree?
It is amazing to me how fundamentalists have taken the lessons from a person who taught pacifism, love, charity, and forgiveness being the highest virtues, and turned it into some Quentin Tarantino-like revenge fantasy. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yeah, FL's cult started with a legend about a guy who preached about love and forgiveness and got tortured and murdered for it, and somehow the lesson they take from this is "Torturing and murdering people is AWESOME! I wish I could slaughter millions then burn them alive forever!"

SWT · 2 June 2010

Frank J said:
Don’t give me any of that interpretational stuff. I’m going on the plain, literal meaning of the text, since I’ve been assured that that’s the only way to infer true meaning.
— SWT
So that one Temptation guy really can turn a gray sky bluer, and the other really can make it rain whenever he wants it to? ;-)

Of course. I am in a bit of a quandary, though, since King Nut was supposed to have arrived to cruise the streets of Detroit with a luminescent green shield and a spear that shoots laser beams somewhere around 2000 AD, accompanied by fleet of mother ships; I don't recall hearing any news reports about that. It must have happened but been covered up by the big anti-Clinton media conspiracy.

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

phantomreader42 said: Yeah, FL's cult started with a legend about a guy who preached about love and forgiveness and got tortured and murdered for it, and somehow the lesson they take from this is "Torturing and murdering people is AWESOME! I wish I could slaughter millions then burn them alive forever!"

His constant, snarky taunting has a distinct ring of cruelty in it. This character is definitely psychologically messed up. Like someone who loves to drown kittens or puppies; but in his mind it is “evilutionists” as well.

FL · 2 June 2010

All HE need do is provide (or lead someone to) objective evidence that modern evolutionary theory is wrong and the vast majority of mainstream scientists will change their assessment of MET without violent revolution.

Refuted already. We already have a documented history of how far evolutionists will go to avoid having to concede that evolutionary theory is wrong. http://darwinspredictions.com/

MrG · 2 June 2010

"The windmills are weakening."

mplavcan · 2 June 2010

Wham! Thread derailed. As predicted. With an inane, ignorant and idiotic link too. Same old crock of shit. I have an idea. How about all of us donate a dollar to NCSE every time FL tries to derail the thread?

FL said:
All HE need do is provide (or lead someone to) objective evidence that modern evolutionary theory is wrong and the vast majority of mainstream scientists will change their assessment of MET without violent revolution.
Refuted already. We already have a documented history of how far evolutionists will go to avoid having to concede that evolutionary theory is wrong. http://darwinspredictions.com/

FL · 2 June 2010

His constant, snarky taunting has a distinct ring of cruelty in it.

Oh, c'mon Mike. YOU happen to think it's "taunting" every time I say the simple words "Texas" and "Louisiana." Sheesh. But consider this, amigo: When I bring up issues like why one little Christian TV show and one little Carman creation hymn stirs up an angry 400-post thread from you guys, it sometimes IS people like you (and some others) I specifically have in mind, Mike. After years of observation, I'm thinking there must be something about your evolutionist religion that has like made you totally allergic to biblical Christianity. Remember, I didn't post anything in the TBN/Carman thread. Not one word. All I did was (when time permitted) carefully and quietly studied what you guys were saying. So, when I do take time to stir up the pot a little via creative use of Sixties Phraseology, that's all it is. Just stirrin' to see what comes to the top. Science experiment, ya know. *** Of course, Phantom gets first place in the creative kneejerk response category:

Yeah, FL’s cult started with a legend about a guy who preached about love and forgiveness and got tortured and murdered for it, and somehow the lesson they take from this is “Torturing and murdering people is AWESOME! I wish I could slaughter millions then burn them alive forever!”

Excellent spin-ology. That one took some imagination, far more vivid than mine. Eric's approach was more dialed-down, hence losing points, but it showed definite promise:

"Quentin Tarantino-like revenge fantasy"

Nice touch, subtle, just needed a bit more salt. (By the way, Tarantino's primary weapon is quirkiness, not violence. That's not necessarily a bad weapon to use in my responses to you guys, as I see it!) *** Despite y'all's hand-wringing, my paragraph was simple and clear: if God sends a revival of biblical Christianity to America (similar to the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings), then evolution's current dominance will likely be destroyed in the majority of American hearts and minds. That's plausible. (Remember, 50% of Americans ALREADY don't buy evolution even under the current evolution-dominant system. The numbers would only boost higher in the event of a Christian revival.) So, if I may ask, what are you complaining about? There's no cruelty here, not even a mild snark. (I'd publicly deny the taunting thing too, but every time I think of Mike I start crossing my fingers!) FL

FL · 2 June 2010

And btw, this thread is not derailed. After all, I did offer Todd Wood's conclusions about what the NSCE dollar numbers actually meant in the larger picture.

(Apparently some of you weren't interested in that part of the show!)

FL :)

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

FL said: (Apparently some of you weren't interested in that part of the show!) FL :)

Nobody is interested in the snarky comments of someone who indulges in such prideful ignorance as you do. You were challenged to prove you had the relevant knowledge to evaluate Dembsi’s scientific expertise and knowledge about science and religion; and you changed the subject and ran away. You took up a 100 page thread over on AtBC and produced nothing but bullshit. You are a narcissistic ass who has nothing intelligent to add to any conversation. Just why in the hell do you think you make religion attractive to anyone? You refuse to learn any science; yet you never hesitate to spew bullshit as though you have some relevant insight or expertise. You are an empty shell; you have no education, and you refuse to get one. You think somehow that is cool. You are an insult to religion and to the human species. And you act damned proud of it. And that is just plain sick. You need psychological help; instead you want everyone else to be as sick as you are. You love it that people think you are disgusting.

fnxtr · 2 June 2010

Blah blah blah.... yeah, FL used to piss me off, too, now I realize that's what he's after. Ho hum.

Dale Husband · 2 June 2010

FL said:
All HE need do is provide (or lead someone to) objective evidence that modern evolutionary theory is wrong and the vast majority of mainstream scientists will change their assessment of MET without violent revolution.
Refuted already. We already have a documented history of how far evolutionists will go to avoid having to concede that evolutionary theory is wrong. http://darwinspredictions.com/

What a load of crap that is. So how was the basic idea of natural selection debunked by that web page? Darwin DID make actual predictions in the Origin of Species. And none of them were falsified. NONE! The "falsifications" mentioned in that web page are either themselves bogus or really have nothing to do with evolution and refer to the issue of abiogenesis. And unsolved problems in abiogenesis are not the same as abiogenesis rendered impossible. That has NOT been shown to be the case at all! In short, the author of that web page is a liar!

Dave Luckett · 2 June 2010

The link to the head post is this sad fact: that there is a demographic of deeply deluded souls who will pay good money for anything you can name, so long as it confirms their own view of themselves, often sublimated. Even violently stupid nonsense, self-evidently idiotic, is saleable, provided it reflects back to the marks their sadly mistaken notion that they have insights into the Universe that are unknown to the fancy-pants intellectuals.

In fact, it often actually helps if the material is violently stupid nonsense.

harold · 2 June 2010

Rolf Aalberg said -

Can’t we take that even one step further: Without evolution, there wouldn’t be much life on Earth.

Absolutely. That is an excellent point. To summarize - 1) Darwin (and Wallace) were incredibly insightful for recognizing basic principles of evolution by a difficult method - they lacked knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry. 2) Given what we know now, it is clear that some sort of magical designer would have to intervene to STOP life from evolving, as was pointed out my MrG. 3) And, as Rolf points out, since evolution is what allows life to diversify and adapt to the ever-changing climates and conditions in every niche on earth, if it wasn't for the fact that life evolves, there wouldn't be much life on earth.

RDK · 2 June 2010

Good god FL, the first ass beating wasn't enough?

I'm beginning to think you're a masochist.

harold · 2 June 2010

That's "as pointed out by MrG, of course.

MrG · 2 June 2010

harold said: 3) And, as Rolf points out, since evolution is what allows life to diversify and adapt to the ever-changing climates and conditions in every niche on earth, if it wasn't for the fact that life evolves, there wouldn't be much life on earth.

Actually, I don't know specific quotes, but I believe that this actually was one of Darwin's insights that led him to come up with evo theory. He accepted from early on Charles Lyell's notion that the Earth evolved through deep time in a gradually shifting fashion. Very well, species would have to shift as well to track the Earth's changes.

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

harold said: Rolf Aalberg said -
Can’t we take that even one step further: Without evolution, there wouldn’t be much life on Earth.
... 3) And, as Rolf points out, since evolution is what allows life to diversify and adapt to the ever-changing climates and conditions in every niche on earth, if it wasn't for the fact that life evolves, there wouldn't be much life on earth.

And it is all because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. One of the most amazing things about the evolving universe is that matter does this; and it has been doing this since the Big Bang. Evolution is matter exploring every potential well that pops up as matter condenses and becomes more complex and follows more and more degrees of freedom. This is something that many experts understand, but it is not a perspective that the layperson gets to hear very often. It’s what makes the search for the origins of life so exciting. We already know this is what complex assemblies of matter do. And it may not be limited to just the energy ranges encompassed by liquid water. That is the range in which we search because that is what we currently have samples of. But what if we are overlooking systems in completely different temperature ranges such as those in liquid methane or other complex liquid molecules?

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

RDK said: Good god FL, the first ass beating wasn't enough? I'm beginning to think you're a masochist.

It looks like sadomasochism being portrayed as martyrdom to his cohorts. Whatever; it’s still sick.

harold · 2 June 2010

RDK

Good god FL, the first ass beating wasn’t enough? I’m beginning to think you’re a masochist.

I'm not sure what FL's major malfunction is. He used to be sort of civil. Now he doesn't even try to be civil or coherent. He seems to have a lot of anger and frustration, project it onto a bunch of science geeks he hasn't ever met, and then go over the top wishing damnation on them, which isn't, of course, very compatible with traditional Christian values. Times sure have changed. My grandfather was the deacon of a traditional Baptist church. I don't follow his religion, but he was a good guy and had a good life. Back then, they actually did what a reasonable person would think that the character Jesus from the Bible is suggesting. They respected science and education, and they welcomed sinners (and by "sinners" they usually meant people who had problems by anybody's standards). Taunting people about Hell was just not even remotely seen as "Christian" behavior.

MrG · 2 June 2010

Mike Elzinga said: what if we are overlooking systems in completely different temperature ranges such as those in liquid methane or other complex liquid molecules?

I was reading an interesting article on "carbon planets" -- see http://www.vectorsite.net/g2010m03.html#m22. In our solar system, silicates dominate the rocky worlds, but in other star systems, depending on the initial conditions, carbon may predominate. So we have a planet with a core of diamond, a crust of graphite, plains of methane, and oceans of tars. What kind of organisms might arise on such planets? Informed speculation of course, but it brings up Haldane's comment that the Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine.

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

MrG said: I was reading an interesting article on "carbon planets" -- see http://www.vectorsite.net/g2010m03.html#m22. In our solar system, silicates dominate the rocky worlds, but in other star systems, depending on the initial conditions, carbon may predominate. So we have a planet with a core of diamond, a crust of graphite, plains of methane, and oceans of tars. What kind of organisms might arise on such planets? Informed speculation of course, but it brings up Haldane's comment that the Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine.

Man; I still get goose bumps thinking about the endless possibilities and research vistas. Life is too short and one just can’t cram it all in during a single lifetime.

MrG · 2 June 2010

Dale Husband said: And unsolved problems in abiogenesis are not the same as abiogenesis rendered impossible.

I'm actually puzzled as to why this is supposed to be an issue with evo science anyway. Typically the people involved in it are biochemists / molecular biologists like Jack Szostak. Accepting for purposes of argument that abiogensis is a crippling problem, then of course it should be a crippling problem for chemistry. As far as evo science goes, if we somehow (exactly how we could, who knows?) determined that life just POOFed into existence, there's not very much in most of the evo sci books I've read that would have to be changed.

Just Bob · 2 June 2010

"Without evolution, there wouldn’t be much life on Earth."

Powerful insight!

Now my warped brain comes back with a question (a legitimate one, not crypto-creo) for the experts. What would happen to life on Earth if all evolution ceased? How soon would minor problems surface? How long before there was serious species loss and major problems for humanity? What sort of cascading chains of extinctions might occur?

And wow! an idea for the next science fiction bestseller! What could stop ALL evolution, indeed all mutation? How about nanotechnology of some sort? Maybe a race of nanobots designed to stop the mutations that cause cancer! What if they got loose, "infected" all living matter on Earth, and were themselves unkillable (maybe they engineer DNA so that their continued presence is necessary for any cell division). And of course they could reproduce themselves. How would we learn to live with them? Could we in the long run? Emigrating off-Earth wouldn't help because they'd be coming with us. And how would the creo cults deal with it when we found out the hard way what life is like when there REALLY is no evolution?

[SF authors in the audience, contact me about royalty arrangements ;)]

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

Just Bob said: And wow! an idea for the next science fiction bestseller! What could stop ALL evolution, indeed all mutation?

Here’s a title for you: The Death of the Second Law

MrG · 2 June 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Here’s a title for you: The Death of the Second Law

I believe this was cited from THE ONION here not too long ago -- "Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics": http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/

MrG · 2 June 2010

Just Bob said: "Without evolution, there wouldn’t be much life on Earth."

"Without evolution, we would be like ... a fiddler on the roof!"

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

MrG said: I believe this was cited from THE ONION here not too long ago -- "Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics": http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/

Good grief; we’ve located a place in the universe where the 2nd law doesn’t work! And it’s inside the heads of fundamentalists.

MrG · 2 June 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Good grief; we’ve located a place in the universe where the 2nd law doesn’t work!

And demonstrates that, despite what science claims, you really CAN achieve a state of ... "Absolute Zero". We have proof!

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

Way back near the beginning of this thread I mentioned that a submariner’s convention in Cincinnati had the Creation “Museum” as one of the events one could pay $45 per person to see.

I don’t know how that got on the list of activities, but I already contacted the Sub Vets Board of Directors.

You might find this interesting, however.

Look at how the Creation “Museum” portrays itself to convention goers in Cincinnati. Here is a detailed event schedule for the submariner’s convention.

Scroll down to Event F. Looks pretty innocuous, doesn’t it. I guess that is how Ken Ham’s gang is rustling up convention goers.

Interesting, eh?

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

MrG said:
Mike Elzinga said: Good grief; we’ve located a place in the universe where the 2nd law doesn’t work!
And demonstrates that, despite what science claims, you really CAN achieve a state of ... "Absolute Zero". We have proof!

Feed an exhaust pipe into that chamber and Carnot efficiency of 100%! Woo Hoo!

RBH · 2 June 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Look at how the Creation “Museum” portrays itself to convention goers in Cincinnati. Here is a detailed event schedule for the submariner’s convention. Scroll down to Event F. Looks pretty innocuous, doesn’t it. I guess that is how Ken Ham’s gang is rustling up convention goers. Interesting, eh?

Yeah, yeah, but sub sailors will fall for anything. :D

Mike Elzinga · 2 June 2010

RBH said:
Mike Elzinga said: Look at how the Creation “Museum” portrays itself to convention goers in Cincinnati. Here is a detailed event schedule for the submariner’s convention. Scroll down to Event F. Looks pretty innocuous, doesn’t it. I guess that is how Ken Ham’s gang is rustling up convention goers. Interesting, eh?
Yeah, yeah, but sub sailors will fall for anything. :D

Hee, hee. Yeah, but every time they take a dive, they keep surfacing. Fundamental equation of the submarine force.

stevaroni · 2 June 2010

MrG said:
Mike Elzinga said: Good grief; we’ve located a place in the universe where the 2nd law doesn’t work!
And demonstrates that, despite what science claims, you really CAN achieve a state of ... "Absolute Zero". We have proof!

Or, in creationist information science terms, a perfect "knowlege sink". We keep dumping information in there, yet the ambient level never rises.

eric · 2 June 2010

FL said: Despite y'all's hand-wringing, my paragraph was simple and clear: if God sends a revival of biblical Christianity to America (similar to the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings), then evolution's current dominance will likely be destroyed in the majority of American hearts and minds. That's plausible. (Remember, 50% of Americans ALREADY don't buy evolution even under the current evolution-dominant system. The numbers would only boost higher in the event of a Christian revival.) So, if I may ask, what are you complaining about?

The fact that you await with poorly hidden glee the day when evolutionary theories will "burn baby burn." It is, for you, a revenge fantasy when you'll get to show all the professors at the university who called you mad that they were wrong (cackle cackle). There's nothing remotely Christian about schaudenfreude, which is really what all those end time fantasies are: people who think they are special taking pleasure in imagining pain and punishment on people they perceive as their opponents.

MrG · 2 June 2010

stevaroni said: We keep dumping information in there, yet the ambient level never rises.

I should think that would be very embarrassing since they keep insisting that "only an intelligence can create information."

Dave Luckett · 2 June 2010

MrG said: So we (could) have a planet with a core of diamond, a crust of graphite, plains of methane, and oceans of tars.

Jolly jack tars, of course.

fnxtr · 2 June 2010

I was wondering about life on Titan, too. Somebody on PT a while back said words to the effect that methane wouldn't be a good substitute for water because it's symmetrical.... ???

Stanton · 2 June 2010

fnxtr said: I was wondering about life on Titan, too. Somebody on PT a while back said words to the effect that methane wouldn't be a good substitute for water because it's symmetrical.... ???

I think they may have meant that methane is non-polar, i.e., the carbon's charges are all evenly distributed amongst four hydrogens.

Mike Elzinga · 3 June 2010

fnxtr said: I was wondering about life on Titan, too. Somebody on PT a while back said words to the effect that methane wouldn't be a good substitute for water because it's symmetrical.... ???

Yes; that’s a concern. The asymmetries in the water molecule provide more options for interactions with other compounds. And these take place at higher temperatures. If methane plus other compounds provide anything like the number of possibilities as does water, it is all taking place at much lower temperatures and in much shallower wells. If life existed, it would be far more delicate and transient. There would have to be plenty of opportunities for delicate systems forming and being shuttled into less energetic environments. Not unlike the situation on Earth with entirely different chemicals. On Earth, life may have formed in much more energetic environments and at much higher temperatures. Extremophiles suggest that life formed in conditions where currently existing life cannot survive. Energy cascades and the shuttling of products out of harm’s way is often the key to making complex systems. Many industrial processes make use of such strategies. Catalysis is also important. Annealing also.

Alex H · 3 June 2010

fnxtr said: Blah blah blah.... yeah, FL used to piss me off, too, now I realize that's what he's after. Ho hum.

Precisely. That's what feeds his narcissism, but an ignorant nobody like him just isn't worth the effort.

Mike Elzinga · 3 June 2010

Sulfur dioxide is another molecule that has some asymmetries similar to that of water. Again, for a liquid, we are looking at lower temperatures than for water.

Robert Byers · 3 June 2010

Has NCSE considered praying? Just kidding I don't want them to get more money. Don't pray.
One must be committed to give one's money. Biblical creationists are such folk. They are convinced they are right, its important, its progressive for man's knowledge, its a fun thing to have a great cause. Of coarse the numbers of creationists is hugh and growing in opinion and passion. Its becoming very cool to be a creationist. Its seen as the smart revolutionary. It could be , like the word liberal, that in not so distant a time being called a evolutionist etc will be a handicapp for credibility in intellectual matters.

A issue right now is that public money is used to teach the evolution side only in public institutions. Schools, museums, etc.
Indeed its this that forces creationists to do it themselves.
Its a moral and legal right for creationism to get all that evolution gets when addressing the public in gov't things.
Anyways the increasing attention to origin issues surely increases passion and money from biblical creationists or anyone who sees us not getting justice from the establishment.
Fight the power.

Dave Luckett · 3 June 2010

High on the ignorance scale - or perhaps the wishful thinking one, because creationists are declining in numbers and influence, not increasing. But nothing on the others. There's nothing actually incoherent in this at all, really. It's merely stupid - a terrible disappointment. "The numbers of creationists is hugh" is a valiant attempt, but that's only two blunders in six words, and Byerbabble requires a higher standard than that.

I make it a 3.

Frank J · 3 June 2010

A issue right now is that public money is used to teach the evolution side only in public institutions. Schools, museums, etc. Indeed its this that forces creationists to do it themselves.
— The one who is increasingly looking like a Loki troll, whether he is or not

"A issue" that you pretend doesn't exist is that the Discovery Institute - which, judging from the posts of yours that I have seen on their blog likes to pretend that you don't exist - also does not want public money used to teach creationism. Certainly not your YEC nonsense. And they do want money used to teach "the evolution side" - along with their long-refuted misrepresentations. Though not the refutations of those misrepresentations, thus effectively giving the last word to those who at best do not earn the right to have anything taught (with public or private money), and at worst spread misinformation that, as someone mentioned above, is anything but Christian behavior.

Rolf Aalberg · 3 June 2010

harold said: Rolf Aalberg said -
Can’t we take that even one step further: Without evolution, there wouldn’t be much life on Earth.
Absolutely. That is an excellent point. To summarize - 1) Darwin (and Wallace) were incredibly insightful for recognizing basic principles of evolution by a difficult method - they lacked knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry. 2) Given what we know now, it is clear that some sort of magical designer would have to intervene to STOP life from evolving, as was pointed out my MrG. 3) And, as Rolf points out, since evolution is what allows life to diversify and adapt to the ever-changing climates and conditions in every niche on earth, if it wasn't for the fact that life evolves, there wouldn't be much life on earth.

I've often thought about that particular aspect of evolution but I seem to find it missing from the debate. I can't for the life of me see how creationists - when they try to address evolution in the context of the accepted scientific view of the world - can make that compatible with the creationist position. For the rest of them, science deniers and straight YEC's, facts are irrelevant by default.

Rolf Aalberg · 3 June 2010

Just Bob said: "Without evolution, there wouldn’t be much life on Earth." Powerful insight! Now my warped brain comes back with a question (a legitimate one, not crypto-creo) for the experts. What would happen to life on Earth if all evolution ceased? How soon would minor problems surface?

An aspect that I believe often is overlooked is that the mechanism of evolution isn't only the engine of evolution; it is also the mechanism that keeps species stable. IIRC, J. K. McKee mentioned that in "The Riddled Chain". Already ten years old but IMHO, still one of the best for non-professionals (like me) to learn about the intricacies of evolution.

Keelyn · 3 June 2010

Byers babbled: Its becoming very cool to be a creationist.

Translation: "It's cool to be ignorant. And so easy. Look at how I have mastered it!" 3.5

harold · 3 June 2010

Mike Elzinga -

I found that creation museum blurb very creepy and deceptive. I also note that in addition to offering a priced-up "package" to veterans, they plan to charge them extra for the movies if they get them there.

Just Bob · 3 June 2010

3.2

"its progressive for man’s knowledge" earns it the extra 0.2

harold · 3 June 2010

This post by Byers is sufficiently original to warrant a reply.

Has NCSE considered praying? Just kidding I don’t want them to get more money. Don’t pray.

So you think praying would help them...interesting...

One must be committed to give one’s money. Biblical creationists are such folk. They are convinced they are right, its important, its progressive for man’s knowledge,

LOL.

its a fun thing to have a great cause.

This is a very telling comment. No, it isn't usually "fun" to have a great cause. A real cause usually involves sacrifice and risk.

Of coarse the numbers of creationists is hugh and growing in opinion and passion. Its becoming very cool to be a creationist. Its seen as the smart revolutionary.

This is both wrong and irrelevant. If it were factually true (and the opposite is true, but if it were), life would still be evolving.

It could be , like the word liberal, that in not so distant a time being called a evolutionist etc will be a handicapp for credibility in intellectual matters.

Get your right wing craziness right, will you? Liberals are supposed to be "elitists" and "intellectuals".

A issue right now is that public money is used to teach the evolution side only in public institutions. Schools, museums, etc.

Because it is the well-documented, neutral, scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Indeed its this that forces creationists to do it themselves.

As is their perfect right, if they do it entirely with their own private money, and don't engage in illegal behaviors such as selling deliberately fraudulent products or tax evasion.

Its a moral and legal right for creationism to get all that evolution gets when addressing the public in gov’t things.

No, this would be a violation of the constitutional rights of all the people whose religions do not preach creationism, or who are not religious.

Anyways the increasing attention to origin issues surely increases passion and money from biblical creationists

If you're so passionate, why do you put up with deniers of Biblical creationism, like Behe (whom I believe is Catholic) and Myers?

or anyone who sees us not getting justice from the establishment. Fight the power.

The laws that prevent you from taking other peoples' tax dollars to force your religion on them equally protect you from having this happen to you. A concept that your mind can't grasp.

Frank J · 3 June 2010

If you’re so passionate, why do you put up with deniers of Biblical creationism, like Behe (whom I believe is Catholic) and Myers?
— harold

I'm still not sure if Byers is faking it for fun ("of coarse"?), but the real anti-evolution activists are committed first to their radical authoritarian agenda (IIRC you're the one who often notes that), and only secondarily to their particular religion. Don't forget that Michael "Bigfoot" Medved and Ben "Expelled" Stein not only probably reject all of the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations of Genesis, but definitely reject the divinity of Jesus. And David Berlinski is a self-described agnostic. All under that big tent that even welcomes Harun Yayha, a Muslim.

Frank J · 3 June 2010

Keelyn said:
Byers babbled: Its becoming very cool to be a creationist.
Translation: "It's cool to be ignorant. And so easy. Look at how I have mastered it!" 3.5

Somebody's got to stand up to experts! ;-)

Mike Elzinga · 3 June 2010

harold said: Mike Elzinga - I found that creation museum blurb very creepy and deceptive. I also note that in addition to offering a priced-up "package" to veterans, they plan to charge them extra for the movies if they get them there.

Creepy indeed. It’s early in the registrations for the convention, but so far the list of attendees shows 134 members with 220 registrations (that includes registrations of wives and family). Only 9 have signed up for the Creation “Museum” tour so far. I don’t know what the $45 per person charge is for. Admission for adults certainly isn’t that much; about $21. I suspect it must include transportation and lunch, but I wouldn’t put it past Ham to bilk veterans or other convention goers. If that few have signed up, it suggests that most of the sub vets are not interested in that crap. I’m curious about how that tour got into the schedule while trips to the Cincinnati Zoo or the Field Museum did not. Given some of the humor among submariners, someone could have added it as a “freak show” event.

MrG · 3 June 2010

Frank J said: Somebody's got to stand up to experts! ;-)

Somehow I remember the old gag about: "Dyslexics of the world UNTIE!"

misha · 3 June 2010

Mike Elzinga said: You might find this interesting, however. Look at how the Creation “Museum” portrays itself to convention goers in Cincinnati. Here is a detailed event schedule for the submariner’s convention. Scroll down to Event F. Looks pretty innocuous, doesn’t it.

I found it amusing that the Creation Museum tour comes right after the tour that "takes you back to the 40's" complete with ration books and war propoganda. I'm assuming that the Creation Museum would like to take our science back to the 40's as well, the 0040's. I can just picture it... They're taking science back, all the way back to the beginning of the church; when people claimed the sun rose by Apollo's chariot, the world was flat and demons caused disease. Nevermind that the early Church would despise creationists because of their rancor, malice, subterfuge and martyr complex. The early church had real martyrs. The creationists make asses of themselves until everyone hates them and then they claim they're being persecuted. While Apostle Paul is escaping over the wall in a basket the creationists are filling baskets with explosives to bomb the nearest Roman bathhouse. While Peter is hanging upside down on a cross the creationists are hanging "God Hates Fags" signs.

Mike Elzinga · 3 June 2010

misha said: I found it amusing that the Creation Museum tour comes right after the tour that "takes you back to the 40's" complete with ration books and war propoganda.

If you check the times of these events, you will see that they overlap. People can sign up for various events as they choose. The events are not a sequence that everyone goes through together. Convention goers will be scattered among a number of different events. But the extra charge for films at the Creation “Museum” is interesting. There is nothing in the advertising for convention goers that gives any hint of what they will see in these films. You have to go to the AiG website to get any hint of the barrage of sectarian ideology you will encounter. There is also no hint of the demonizing of evolution, secular science, science teachers, public education, and mainline churches that one will encounter as one passes through the obligatory sequence of displays in the “museum” itself.

FL · 3 June 2010

Interesting comments as always, but I need to ask Harold about a coupla things:

...and then go over the top wishing damnation on them

...and in which post did I do this deed?

...Taunting people about Hell was just not even remotely seen as “Christian” behavior.

...and exactly where did I taunt anybody about Hell? You'll have to tell me, Harold. *** Meanwhile, Eric said:

...(The) fact that you await with poorly hidden glee the day when evolutionary theories will “burn baby burn.”

Now THAT one, I will plead guilty to. What can I do but smile at the very thought? Such a possibility fills me with merrily mischievous (but never malicious) pleasure, a la Dick Dastardly. Even so, it seems that Eric understood my words much better than Harold did. FL

FL · 3 June 2010

Oh, and btw Mike, I've already listed the high school and university science courses I've taken (I specifically listed them for you in particular, remember?).

So when you say, "you have no education, and you refuse to get one", you're actually trafficking in, umm, "la mentira", are you not...?

FL :)

Mike Elzinga · 3 June 2010

FL said: Oh, and btw Mike, I've already listed the high school and university science courses I've taken (I specifically listed them for you in particular, remember?).

Plenty of people take courses, get decent grades and still come out the end with no conceptual understanding of what it was all about. How are you any different? You still get everything wrong; and you can’t vet Dembski’s knowledge while pretending you can. You prattle on and on, making a complete ass of yourself and loving every minute of it. You blew any chance you had of demonstrating you had anything intelligent to contribute to any conversation. Nobody likes you or your fake religion. You have some serious psychological problems; and everyone here can see it but you.

Stanton · 3 June 2010

FL said: But that's understandable. For if HE one day sticks a can of gas and a pack of matches to your evolutionary house of cards in the minds of the masses, then what? It'll be BURN BABY BURN for your chosen evolutionist religion, regardless of current court decisions!! Ummm....wouldn't you agree? FL

Why are we not supposed to construe this taunting threat you made about God coming down from the Heavens to destroy the evidence for evolution, and all of the people who support it with hellfire as either a taunt or a threat about being damned for all eternity for simply not believing your lies or your smarm?

FL said: Meanwhile, Eric said:
...(The) fact that you await with poorly hidden glee the day when evolutionary theories will “burn baby burn.”
Now THAT one, I will plead guilty to. What can I do but smile at the very thought? Such a possibility fills me with merrily mischievous (but never malicious) pleasure, a la Dick Dastardly. Even so, it seems that Eric understood my words much better than Harold did. FL

So, you're confessing that the image of sending other people who do not believe your lies to Hell to burn there for all eternity is your most fondest wish?

FL said: Oh, and btw Mike, I've already listed the high school and university science courses I've taken (I specifically listed them for you in particular, remember?). So when you say, "you have no education, and you refuse to get one", you're actually trafficking in, umm, "la mentira", are you not...? FL :)

Actually, you have never ever stated where you got your education from. Furthermore, what crapsack school with a biology class would give any of its students a "B" if that student came away claiming that evolution is worshiped by atheists and scientists as a god, that Charles Darwin is a holybook, and that science classrooms are churches? Of course, if we follow the pretzel logic of your previous rantings, if you really did enroll in a science class, you've committed apostasy.

Mike Elzinga · 3 June 2010

I’m sure by now that everyone has noticed that FL takes quibbling to higher and higher levels of taunting. That’s his substitute for putting any substance whatsoever into any of his replies.

Dale Husband · 3 June 2010

Robert Byers said: Has NCSE considered praying? Just kidding I don't want them to get more money. Don't pray. One must be committed to give one's money. Biblical creationists are such folk. They are convinced they are right, its important, its progressive for man's knowledge, its a fun thing to have a great cause. Of coarse the numbers of creationists is hugh and growing in opinion and passion. Its becoming very cool to be a creationist. Its seen as the smart revolutionary. It could be , like the word liberal, that in not so distant a time being called a evolutionist etc will be a handicapp for credibility in intellectual matters. A issue right now is that public money is used to teach the evolution side only in public institutions. Schools, museums, etc. Indeed its this that forces creationists to do it themselves. Its a moral and legal right for creationism to get all that evolution gets when addressing the public in gov't things. Anyways the increasing attention to origin issues surely increases passion and money from biblical creationists or anyone who sees us not getting justice from the establishment. Fight the power.

You can always know when Robert Byers is lying outright about something.....when he says anything!

Meanwhile, the equally delusional FL sez: Oh, and btw Mike, I've already listed the high school and university science courses I've taken (I specifically listed them for you in particular, remember?). So when you say, "you have no education, and you refuse to get one", you're actually trafficking in, umm, "la mentira", are you not...? FL :)

I am well aware of Christian private grade schools and colleges that do teach biology from a Creationist perspective. That's as perverted as teaching world history from a hard-line Communist perspective. Only in fundamentalist religion is FRAUD considered a holy act!

Frank J · 4 June 2010

Mike Elzinga said: I’m sure by now that everyone has noticed that FL takes quibbling to higher and higher levels of taunting. That’s his substitute for putting any substance whatsoever into any of his replies.

That's the tactic of any pseudoscience/superstition peddler. But it takes 2 to tango. At least in this thread so far the bait-taking is minimal. Usually it gets much worse. If my own "minimal bait taking" is any indication, one way to take the wind out of their sails is to keep rubbing it in about how they almost never discuss anything on these boards with each other (aside from the occasional vague "right on"). If they had any confidence in their mutually contradictory "theories" they'd welcome the opportunity to challenge each other, as "Darwinists" routinely do over much more minor differences than those among evolution-deniers. If we can't drag them out of the big tent, at least we can show how they frantically run for cover whenever they are asked to put up or shut up.

Frank J · 4 June 2010

I am well aware of Christian private grade schools and colleges that do teach biology from a Creationist perspective. That’s as perverted as teaching world history from a hard-line Communist perspective.
— Dale Husband

It's even worse if that "Creationist perspective" uses the currently fashionable "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did, when or how" approach. At least those who would teach world history from a hard-line Communist perspective (apparently) truly believe in their "theory." As such they would spell out the details, and risk having students "critically analyze" it.

Stuart Weinstein · 4 June 2010

MrG said:
Mike Elzinga said: Here’s a title for you: The Death of the Second Law
I believe this was cited from THE ONION here not too long ago -- "Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics": http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/

If that thought occurred to the Texas BOE, I'm sure they would have tried.

John Vanko · 4 June 2010

MrG said: I believe this was cited from THE ONION here not too long ago -- "Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics": http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/

What makes it even funnier is that YECreationists insist that the 2ndLOT is absolutely immutable, like their holy book. If I recall correctly there is no assurance that our Laws of Thermodynamics hold true in strongly curved space-time, like you would encounter in close proximity to a black hole. Around Plant Earth where the curvature is very slight, or observing a black hole from great distance, they hold. With strong curvature, all bets are off - maybe they hold, maybe they don't. YECreationists don't acknowledge this. Neither have I ever heard a YECreationist give a correct definition of entropy.

John Kwok · 4 June 2010

I admit that this is off topic, but thought I'd alert fellow Panda's Thumb readers in the New York City metropolitan area that tickets are available for several World Science Festival events, including the Science Faith session that's earned the ire again from certain militant atheists (It's been so popular, that the venue has been changed to a much larger auditorium. No doubt the adverse publicity about this session has helped in its promotion.). There is also a free all day street fair at NYU and Washington Square Park on Sunday, with presentations from David Bolinsky of XVIVO of his cell animation video (BTW the very one which XVIVO produced for Harvard's cell and molecular biology department which, oddly enough, was "acquired" by that great "biologist" William Dembski, a few years ago.) and vertebrate paleobiologist Scott Sampson on dinosaurs. For more information and to purchase tickets online look here:

http://www.worldsciencefestival.com

(In the interest of full disclosure I am working again this year as a volunteer. I plead the fifth as to whether or not I will be working at the Science Faith session.)

Robert Byers · 5 June 2010

Frank J said:
A issue right now is that public money is used to teach the evolution side only in public institutions. Schools, museums, etc. Indeed its this that forces creationists to do it themselves.
— The one who is increasingly looking like a Loki troll, whether he is or not
"A issue" that you pretend doesn't exist is that the Discovery Institute - which, judging from the posts of yours that I have seen on their blog likes to pretend that you don't exist - also does not want public money used to teach creationism. Certainly not your YEC nonsense. And they do want money used to teach "the evolution side" - along with their long-refuted misrepresentations. Though not the refutations of those misrepresentations, thus effectively giving the last word to those who at best do not earn the right to have anything taught (with public or private money), and at worst spread misinformation that, as someone mentioned above, is anything but Christian behavior.

I.D folk are quite intelligent and seem fair and can be persuaded about public institutions being open to the biblical creationist opinion . its the moral and legal right anyways for freedom of the people through the legislature to insist on equal time or prohibite teachings on origins. Indeed I recently asked and received a reply from Mr Casey Luskin on this. He didn't agree with my points about why creationim(s) have already all rights to exist in the public schools as options on origins. He said simply I.D. is as much science as evolution etc and thats the reason why it can be included in the schools. i don't see origin issues as about science as they, in their core and outer core, are not testable. As the great Henry Morris said they are both not open to the scientific method. They are rather like subjects like history. Data and interpretation can be done and bring about truth but history is not a subject of science. So arguing I.D is science is difficult because evolution isn't science. The better idea is to simply argue that the American people never put into the constitution anything to prohibit God or Genesis as options in state schools. Its absurd. Present laws banning creationism are recent and faulty thinking even by people without unjust motives. I.d is however helping to stir up more interest about the present censorship in public institutions by people before disinterested or ignorant about it all.

Dave Luckett · 5 June 2010

What is it about creationists that they never actually argue? They assert, and when their assertion is comprehensively rebutted, simply repeat it?

Monty Python, you said a mouthful.

Rolf Aalberg · 5 June 2010

John Vanko said:
MrG said: I believe this was cited from THE ONION here not too long ago -- "Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics": http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/
What makes it even funnier is that YECreationists insist that the 2ndLOT is absolutely immutable, like their holy book. If I recall correctly there is no assurance that our Laws of Thermodynamics hold true in strongly curved space-time, like you would encounter in close proximity to a black hole. Around Plant Earth where the curvature is very slight, or observing a black hole from great distance, they hold. With strong curvature, all bets are off - maybe they hold, maybe they don't. YECreationists don't acknowledge this. Neither have I ever heard a YECreationist give a correct definition of entropy.

I may be wrong but the way I see it, the 2LOT is simply another way of expressing the simple, basic fact that the universe is like a machine running down towards it's ultimate end: cold, quiet, nothing stirs. Unless the Big Crunch or some other yet to be discovered mechanism kicks in. In the meantime we are enjoying the benefits of free energy. Lots of.

Joe Felsenstein · 5 June 2010

A belated addendum to the discussion of the submariner's convention and their response to possible tours of the Creation Museum:

Mike Elzinga said: Creepy indeed. It’s early in the registrations for the convention, but so far the list of attendees shows 134 members with 220 registrations (that includes registrations of wives and family). Only 9 have signed up for the Creation “Museum” tour so far. ... If that few have signed up, it suggests that most of the sub vets are not interested in that crap. I’m curious about how that tour got into the schedule while trips to the Cincinnati Zoo or the Field Museum did not. Given some of the humor among submariners, someone could have added it as a “freak show” event.

I'd like to think that it is because of the historical connection between evolutionary biology and submarines -- in the person of J.B.S. Haldane. JBS's father John Scott Haldane's father was an important physiologist of breathing, who investigated the "bends" for the British Admiralty and computed the first diving tables. JBS assisted his father and carried on his work. During World War II, he was involved in the inquiry into the deaths of submariners in the sinking of the Thetis, and he also advised the Admiralty on the design of the minisubs that were sent to attack the German battleship Tirpitz in its Norwegian fjord. He is also said to have designed the breathing apparatus that allows escape from submarines. And oh yes, he was one of the three great founders of theoretical population genetics, a founder as well of the mathematics of enzyme kinetics, and one of the original people to suggest that life started from an organic soup. Here are some links: Haldane entering a diving chamber: http://www.life.com/image/50455072 Ronald Clark's biography of Haldane in a possibly-illegal online copy: http://gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/books/haldanebio.pdf

Joe Felsenstein · 5 June 2010

Woops, editing mistake:

"JBS’s father John Scott Haldane’s father was"

should of course be

"JBS's father John Scott Haldane was"

MrG · 5 June 2010

I think that the term "intelligence" as applied to creationism in its various con games doesn't quite fit. "Low cunning" -- yeah, I can easily grant them that.

Mike Elzinga · 5 June 2010

Joe Felsenstein said: I'd like to think that it is because of the historical connection between evolutionary biology and submarines -- in the person of J.B.S. Haldane.

Joe, Thanks for the links to Haldane’s work on submarine escape, especially Ronald Clark’s biography of Haldane. Absolutely fascinating. I hadn’t heard of Haldane’s connection with the early work on submariner physiology. Submariners in the U.S., during the height of the cold war and before the nuclear navy, escaped using the Momsen lung invented by Charles Momsen. The Momsen lung was discarded around the early to mid 1950s and replaced with an escape method in which we climbed into an escape trunk in either the forward or after torpedo rooms. We flooded these with water, leaving an air pocket just above the escape hatch, and pressurized to the ambient pressure outside. We then opened the escape hatch to the outside, stepped out into the open water, and pulled the inflate cord on our life jackets. During the buoyant ascent we actively blew out, following our bubbles to the surface. This was to be sure that the air that was expanding in our lungs was continuously relived as we ascended. It was actually safer than the Momsen lung, which often had mechanical problems from long storage and battering. We did practices from 50 feet and 100 feet, and occasionally in the open waters in the Pacific. And wouldn’t you know, among submariners it became known as “blow-and-go.” When the nuclear navy eventually replaced the diesel boats, this kind of escape training was no longer done. The rationale was that the nuclear boats operated in far too deep water and were not supposed to be captured anyway. The training towers were dismantled. Now escape training is being reinstituted. A lot of the submarine uses have returned to “shallow water” ops in and around the continental shelves instead of out in deep water.

Frank J · 5 June 2010

I.d is however helping to stir up more interest about the present censorship in public institutions by people before disinterested or ignorant about it all.
— Robert Byers

Right. And anyone with at least half a brain and who believes that it is wrong to bear false witness knows which side is in favor of censorship.

Frank J · 6 June 2010

Frank J said:
I.d is however helping to stir up more interest about the present censorship in public institutions by people before disinterested or ignorant about it all.
— Robert Byers
Right. And anyone with at least half a brain and who believes that it is wrong to bear false witness knows which side is in favor of censorship.

It was late and I was tired, but what I meant is that the great majority of people are capable of knowing that. But the unfortunate reality is that the great majority of people, including many who accept evolution, have been fooled by the scam artists into think that mainstream science advocates censorship and that the anti-evolution activists (aka scam artists) do not. That's two separate falsehoods in case anyone is counting. Note the irony. If the scam artists really wanted people to see "all sides" of the "debate", they would not bother with the ~0.1% of students' time (a few hours out of thousands) that they are learning evolution. And especially if they were truly conservative they would not demand that taxpayers pay for it. The "it" being phony "strengths and weaknesses" which is pure misrepresentation, with a virtually complete censorship (a few % of students might recognize the scam) of mainstream science's answers to those misrepresentations. As I always say, above and beyond any church-state issues, ~99.9% of scientists working in relevant fields, those with the most to gain if there were a better explanation, agree that evolution should be taught free of misrepresentation by anti-evolution activists. And the leaders of most major religions agree (idiotic nonsense that they are "bullied" notwithstanding).

Robert Byers · 6 June 2010

Frank J said:
Frank J said:
I.d is however helping to stir up more interest about the present censorship in public institutions by people before disinterested or ignorant about it all.
— Robert Byers
Right. And anyone with at least half a brain and who believes that it is wrong to bear false witness knows which side is in favor of censorship.
It was late and I was tired, but what I meant is that the great majority of people are capable of knowing that. But the unfortunate reality is that the great majority of people, including many who accept evolution, have been fooled by the scam artists into think that mainstream science advocates censorship and that the anti-evolution activists (aka scam artists) do not. That's two separate falsehoods in case anyone is counting. Note the irony. If the scam artists really wanted people to see "all sides" of the "debate", they would not bother with the ~0.1% of students' time (a few hours out of thousands) that they are learning evolution. And especially if they were truly conservative they would not demand that taxpayers pay for it. The "it" being phony "strengths and weaknesses" which is pure misrepresentation, with a virtually complete censorship (a few % of students might recognize the scam) of mainstream science's answers to those misrepresentations. As I always say, above and beyond any church-state issues, ~99.9% of scientists working in relevant fields, those with the most to gain if there were a better explanation, agree that evolution should be taught free of misrepresentation by anti-evolution activists. And the leaders of most major religions agree (idiotic nonsense that they are "bullied" notwithstanding).

This is simple. Freedom of thought, discussion, inquiry on origin issues is a desired goal of creationists in public institutions. Its not from your crowd. Creationism demands, and will get, its moral and legal rights to argue/defend itself in public paid institutions. Simple equation. Why do the evolution folk fight this? it must be because of fear of loss of ground in public acceptance? Creationism is confident we always do better or as well as evolution in its persuasiveness to the people In North America.

Stanton · 6 June 2010

How can Creationism do well or better than evolution in its persuasiveness when Creationists regard lying and slander to be holy sacraments, and care absolutely nothing about science or explaining anything?

Mike Elzinga · 6 June 2010

Robert Byers said: Why do the evolution folk fight this? it must be because of fear of loss of ground in public acceptance? Creationism is confident we always do better or as well as evolution in its persuasiveness to the people In North America.

You were getting all the science wrong 40+ years ago and you are still getting it wrong. You can’t live on the science you believe without the support of "your enemies" who protect and feed you; yet you remain an ingrate and a parasite. You have no business getting a soapbox for teaching crap that continues to be wrong. Keep it in your church as the pillars of your religion if you like; but you don’t get to throw stumbling blocks into the learning paths of other people’s kids.

Scott · 7 June 2010

Dear Mr. Byers,
Creationism has been shown to be false, in general, and in all details. The proponents of creationism have been proven to be liars. Why do you feel you have a moral and legal right to use taxpayer money to lie to children, in violation of both the US Constitution and God's Ten Commandments?

SWT · 7 June 2010

Robert Byers said: This is simple. Freedom of thought, discussion, inquiry on origin issues is a desired goal of creationists in public institutions. Its not from your crowd. Creationism demands, and will get, its moral and legal rights to argue/defend itself in public paid institutions. Simple equation. Why do the evolution folk fight this? it must be because of fear of loss of ground in public acceptance? Creationism is confident we always do better or as well as evolution in its persuasiveness to the people In North America.

Of course. We absolutely must make sure that all science students understand that while mainstream science understands, based on objective evidence, the Earth to be the consequence of a 14+ billion year process and that humans are the result of an evolutionary process that started billions of years ago, those who have studied "origin issues" with a truly open mind understand (1) that the Earth and sky were actually formed by Lord Marduk from the corpse of Tiamat, whom he slayed, (2) that humans were produced from the blood and bone of Kingu in an act of special creation, and (3) that the intent of this creative act was to produce slaves for the gods.

Dale Husband · 7 June 2010

Robert Byers said: This is simple. Freedom of thought, discussion, inquiry on origin issues is a desired goal of creationists in public institutions. Its not from your crowd. Creationism demands, and will get, its moral and legal rights to argue/defend itself in public paid institutions. Simple equation. Why do the evolution folk fight this? it must be because of fear of loss of ground in public acceptance? Creationism is confident we always do better or as well as evolution in its persuasiveness to the people In North America.

If Creationism were not associated with fundamentalist religion, it would have been dismissed as outright fraud even by most Christians. Which it indeed is. Fraud can never be accepted in science classrooms, whatever it may be called.

Frank J · 8 June 2010

If Creationism were not associated with fundamentalist religion, it would have been dismissed as outright fraud even by most Christians. Which it indeed is. Fraud can never be accepted in science classrooms, whatever it may be called.
— Dale Husband

In fact the leaders of most Christian religions do recognize it as fraud, and have admitted it in so many words (often chosen carefully so as not to upset the congregation). While maybe half of that congregation agrees at least that evolution is the "better explanation," a much larger % has been fooled into thinking that it's "fair" to let anti-evolution activists have control of public school science class. So that's still a major problem, and will remain one regardless of how many court decisions we win. They need to know that anti-evolution activism, be it called "creationism," "ID," "academic freedom," etc. is a fraud. Above and beyond any church-state issues. Ironically we need to thank people like Robert for stating it so starkly that it can only help us with the majority. Sure a few % will take his side, but they would with or without people like him.