Lauri Lebo blog and the End of the World

I guess FamilyRadio.com = Harold Camping, so, yes. Isn't Camping based in the Bay Area himself?

Just by coincidence I was looking at skeptic.com a few minutes ago.

David Morrison addresses some pretty wacky questions over there also. :-)

I love this stuff - a sort of algebra of inanity, resulting in nonsense. Totally cool!

So we're on the seven thousandth year so that means we have to wait another thousand years before they stop making doomsday predictions? Because in the eight thousandth year they would realize they were wrong? (Rhetorical question.)

May 21, 2011, eh?

Is there any chance whatsoever that there will be a massive, a truly monumental, roast organised for this basket-case piece of nutbar on May 22?

About the same chance as with all the other nutbars, I guess.

His writing is nice and legible, but I wonder why he doesn't use a computer. He has an email address, after all.

The last one ends with "J.D." Is this guy a lawyer?

My friend's birthday is May 21. Maybe she's the Antichrist, and that day is Antichristmas.

"Is this guy a lawyer?"

Well, he's not admitted to practice law in California (if "David Temple" is his real name):

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member.aspx

But a lot of the people with J.D.s from the unaccredited law schools in California never pass the bar exam.

Nick,

Thanks for this. Don't always have time to read Lauri's posts, but hers are quite thoughtful and well written. Am glad she's opted to join the fight against evolution denialists on a permanent basis.

Well, at least that hypothesis is easily tested. Although, no matter what actually happens on that day, he will no doubt claim that that is exactly what he meant by "the end of the world". Unless of course this guy has access to nucyaler weapons and plans on helping things along just to prove he was right. (Well that's the way the former president thought it was spelled apparently).

Dear Nick:

People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

DS said: Well, at least that hypothesis is easily tested. Although, no matter what actually happens on that day, he will no doubt claim that that is exactly what he meant by "the end of the world". Unless of course this guy has access to nucyaler weapons and plans on helping things along just to prove he was right. (Well that's the way the former president thought it was spelled apparently).

No, Ray, I suppose we shouldn't laugh at loons like you. It's unkind. Ungenerous. Very close to mocking the afflicted. Almost like shooting fish in a barrel, too. Takes all the challenge out of making fun of people, when they're as crazy as you guys.

It's fun, though, can't deny that.

Dave Luckett said: No, Ray, I suppose we shouldn't laugh at loons like you. It's unkind. Ungenerous. Very close to mocking the afflicted. Almost like shooting fish in a barrel, too. Takes all the challenge out of making fun of people, when they're as crazy as you guys. It's fun, though, can't deny that.

Welcome back Ray. I thought you were shanghaied to China, trying to proselytize the people of my ancestral homeland. Or wound up in the belly of a Burmese python, being digested slowly.

May I suggest you read Lauri Lebo's superb book, "The Devil in Dover"? Think she had you in mind when she was writing her terse, superb book.

Ray -

You worship a false GOD. I doubt the real Judeo-Christian GOD would applaud a delusional intellectually-challenged fool like yourself, but instead would demand that you think for yourself and recognize finally that evolution is a well established scientific fact.

Anyway, I have news for you. There is more "truth" in Klingon Cosmology than shall ever exist for ID, YEC, or other forms of cretinism. How? Here's how:

1) Must be true since Klingons are seen often on television and in the movies, and if they’re there, then they are real.

2) A Klingon Language Institute does exist, here in the United States (in Colorado, if I’m not mistaken).

3) People hold religious ceremonies, including marriage vows, speaking Klingon.

4) The Bible and Shakespeare’s plays have been translated into Klingon.

5) And just this week, the Jenolen Caves, near Sydney, Australia, are now offering audio tours in Klingon.

If I were a smart businessman I would start running sales with the hook, "No payments until May 22, 2011!!!!!!"

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

A few years ago one of those grocery store "newspapers" had a headline that the world was going to end on Nov 22 2005. So I posted it on the board for my students to see. On Nov 23 I came into class with candy bars to celebrate our survival of the end of the world. My students had a good time and learned a little skepticism at the same time. A friend of mine had a co-worker doing the "I know the date of the end of the world thing",so being a lawyer she drew up a contract that signed over all his possessions to her on the day after and challenged him to sign it. Funny thing his "faith" wasn't strong enough to sign it. Any one who claims to believe this stuff should be held to it. If their faith is strong enough to try to make every one else live according to what they believe god wants then it should be strong enough to give up all worldly possessions if they think they know when the end of the world is.
I have often made the claim that I KNOW as much about god as anybody on earth and I dare anybody to prove me wrong. The key being of course the word "know" because nobody "knows" anything about god include whether or not there is one.

Mary H said: A few years ago one of those grocery store "newspapers" had a headline that the world was going to end on Nov 22 2005. So I posted it on the board for my students to see. On Nov 23 I came into class with candy bars to celebrate our survival of the end of the world. My students had a good time and learned a little skepticism at the same time. A friend of mine had a co-worker doing the "I know the date of the end of the world thing",so being a lawyer she drew up a contract that signed over all his possessions to her on the day after and challenged him to sign it. Funny thing his "faith" wasn't strong enough to sign it. Any one who claims to believe this stuff should be held to it. If their faith is strong enough to try to make every one else live according to what they believe god wants then it should be strong enough to give up all worldly possessions if they think they know when the end of the world is. I have often made the claim that I KNOW as much about god as anybody on earth and I dare anybody to prove me wrong. The key being of course the word "know" because nobody "knows" anything about god include whether or not there is one.

I've been reading Gantz lately and the current arc/theme is that the world is ending, there is no God, and humans must defend themselves. More entertaining than numerology.

Eddie Janssen said: Isn't there a company in the US that promises to take care of the pets of those who are taken with Jesus in the Rapture (for a modest fee, ofcourse)? Is their business booming?

Eddie Janssen said:

Mary H said: A few years ago one of those grocery store "newspapers" had a headline that the world was going to end on Nov 22 2005. So I posted it on the board for my students to see. On Nov 23 I came into class with candy bars to celebrate our survival of the end of the world. My students had a good time and learned a little skepticism at the same time. A friend of mine had a co-worker doing the "I know the date of the end of the world thing",so being a lawyer she drew up a contract that signed over all his possessions to her on the day after and challenged him to sign it. Funny thing his "faith" wasn't strong enough to sign it. Any one who claims to believe this stuff should be held to it. If their faith is strong enough to try to make every one else live according to what they believe god wants then it should be strong enough to give up all worldly possessions if they think they know when the end of the world is. I have often made the claim that I KNOW as much about god as anybody on earth and I dare anybody to prove me wrong. The key being of course the word "know" because nobody "knows" anything about god include whether or not there is one.

Isn't there a company in the US that promises to take care of the pets of those who are taken with Jesus in the Rapture (for a modest fee, ofcourse)? Is their business booming?

Eddie Janssen said: Isn't there a company in the US that promises to take care of the pets of those who are taken with Jesus in the Rapture (for a modest fee, ofcourse)? Is their business booming?

A company to take care of pets after the rapture?

Unfotunatly I can't check out the website but I have a whole list of questions....

Like what kind of people do you hire to make sure you still have a business after the rapture?

How do you know you can trust those people to run the business after the rapture?

Anyway, going back to the original topic, I recall the Bible explicitly says that the second comming will come like a theif in the night and that you will not know the day or hour. I guess he missed that part.

Isn’t there a company in the US that promises to take care of the pets of those who are taken with Jesus in the Rapture (for a modest fee, of course)? Is their business booming?

http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

Pets, now. I have as a companion an aged poodle, who is far more fit for Heaven than most human beings I know. If she isn't going there, I'm not either.

Heaven, it is said, is the place where all the dogs you have loved and who have loved you run, barking with joy, to greet you as you come in.

I wish with all my heart it were so.

Ray Martinez said: People like yourself who believe that...animals...f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

DS said: ...no matter what actually happens on that day, he will no doubt claim that that is exactly what he meant by "the end of the world".

Yep. Adams had it right:

"There is a theory which states that if anyone ever figures out what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced with something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is a second theory which states that this has already happened."

Only one year between OT and NT?
Somebody hasn't done their homework.

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

this koan of grandmotherly kindness:

Ray Martinez said: People like yourself who believe that....... f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production......

Mike of Oz said:

Ray Martinez said: People like yourself who believe that....... f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production......

Absolutely, Ray! Everybody with half a brain knows it's the stork.

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

Am I the only when to revel in the irony that 'end of the worlders' are found now only on the part of religious zealots of certain brands AND climate alarmists(I am one)?

Climate Progress just had a new thing to worry about. Micro-organism numbers in the ocean may be plummeting.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/29/nature-decline-ocean-phytoplankton-global-warming-boris-worm/

Roger said:

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

But you make it so hard not to laugh at you when you believe animals having sex doesn't lead to reproduction. Please enlighten us by telling us how you think biological reproduction works so we can practice keeping a straight face.

phantomreader42 said:

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

So Ray the nutcase has gone from denying evolution to denying REPRODUCTION.

Ray M. said:

phantomreader42 said:

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

So Ray the nutcase has gone from denying evolution to denying REPRODUCTION.

I am relieved to be considered a nutcase by a person who thinks animals f*cking (natural selection) is the main mechanism that produced the wonder of nature and mankind. Theist scholars are correct: acceptance of evolution is a punishment from God for denying ID. This explains why a theory with no evidence in support is accepted.

After reading this, I can only feel meds are desperately needed here.

Not for HIM. I've never been fond of recreational drugs, but after seeing things like this they sure seem attractive to ME.

Malchus said: Intercourse is not natural selection. You appear to have very little understanding of the basics of evolutionary theory - and of the English language.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: I love this story. I used to use it all the time on message boards, to explain how the very fact that I was criticizing someone was a sign of respect.

Ray M. said: If what you wrote were really true you would not have wasted your time and responded. In addition: your response concerning natural selection is ad hoc. It denies the main component of natural selection (animals f*cking/superfecundity) because you now suddenly realize how idiotic the claim is. I am happy that I made you deny natural selection.

Ray M. said: We can offer no better evidence supporting the claim that Darwinists are deluded:

Ray M. said: all replies think animals f*cking is the "Creator." The delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.

Ray M. said: This is why we are Creationists and IDists.

Ray M. said:

Malchus said: Intercourse is not natural selection. You appear to have very little understanding of the basics of evolutionary theory - and of the English language.

If what you wrote were really true you would not have wasted your time and responded. In addition: your response concerning natural selection is ad hoc. It denies the main component of natural selection (animals f*cking/superfecundity) because you now suddenly realize how idiotic the claim is. I am happy that I made you deny natural selection.

I wondered how he came up with the strange dating of the Flood at 4990 BC. Apparantly, Camping used the ridiculous method of assuming each successive patriarch (not counting the first three and Noah - he seems to pick and choose the method based on the answer he's looking for ...) was born the year his father died, after the method of spiders and praying mantises. For example, although Gen. 5:09-11 says Enosh (Enos) lived 90 years and begat Kenan (Cainan), then lived another 815 years, had other sons and daughters, and died at 905, Camping has Kenan born when his father, Enosh was 905. He has the Flood at 6023 AC (after Creation), when almost everyone else infers a date of 1656 AC. He continues the method through Abraham, then links "AC" to the modern calendar through the generally-accepted (alleged) birth of Abraham in 2167 BC. I've never duplicated the good Bisshop Ussher's creation at 4004 BC, but I can come pretty close at 4115. Camping gets 11013.

John_S said: I wondered how he came up with the strange dating of the Flood at 4990 BC. Apparantly, Camping used the ridiculous method of assuming each successive patriarch (not counting the first three and Noah - he seems to pick and choose the method based on the answer he's looking for ...) was born the year his father died, after the method of spiders and praying mantises. For example, although Gen. 5:09-11 says Enosh (Enos) lived 90 years and begat Kenan (Cainan), then lived another 815 years, had other sons and daughters, and died at 905, Camping has Kenan born when his father, Enosh was 905. He has the Flood at 6023 AC (after Creation), when almost everyone else infers a date of 1656 AC. He continues the method through Abraham, then links "AC" to the modern calendar through the generally-accepted (alleged) birth of Abraham in 2167 BC. I've never duplicated the good Bisshop Ussher's creation at 4004 BC, but I can come pretty close at 4115. Camping gets 11013.

Gen. 5:09 And Enos lived 90 years, and begat Cainan: (10) And Enos lived after he begat Cainan 815 years, and begat sons and daughters: (11) And all the days of Enos were 905 years: and he died.

Ray M. said:

Roger said:

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

But you make it so hard not to laugh at you when you believe animals having sex doesn't lead to reproduction. Please enlighten us by telling us how you think biological reproduction works so we can practice keeping a straight face.

We can offer no better evidence supporting the claim that Darwinists are deluded: all replies think animals f*cking is the "Creator." The delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God. This is why we are Creationists and IDists.

It's like the thing Lenny Bruce said during his trial for obscenity!

R.M., suppressed little Xian that he is, REALLY digs saying/typing the word "fucking"!

I'd describe him as a piece of s---, but I have far more use and respect for most s---.

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -- Matthew 24:36

This is not the first time Camping has predicted Judgment Day: On Sept. 6, 1994, dozens of Camping’s believers gathered inside Alameda’s Veterans Memorial Building to await the return of Christ, an event Camping had promised for two years. Followers dressed children in their Sunday best and held Bibles open-faced toward heaven. But the world did not end. Camping allowed that he may have made a mathematical error. --Lauri Lebo

There are differing views concerning future prophecies. Instead of arguing about them, let us remember that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). We believe, however, that the so-called "premillenial" view offers the most comprehensive explanation of coming events. According to this view: 1. Christ's coming is imminent: It could occur at any time. (Matt. 24:42-44, 1 Cor. 15:52; Revelation 22:12). 2. The first stage of His coming is known as the "Rapture." "We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him..." "...For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall be with the Lord forever." (1 Thess. 4:14, 16-17, NIV; see also Titus 2:13). This is the first resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:52-57, 2 Corinthians 5:4, 1 John 3:2) 3. Next comes the judgment seat of Christ for believers (2. Cor. 5:10). Believers will be judged for their faithfulness in life and service (1 Cor. 3:11-15' 4:1-5). But they will not be judged for their sins. That was taken care of at Calvary (2 Cor. 5:21). 4. The Great Tribulation period comes next (Daniel 12:1; Matt. 24:21, 29; Rev. 7:14); and the "man of sin" (the Antichrist) will be manifested (2 Thess. 2:3, 4, 8; Rev. 13:1-10). 5. The second stage of Christ's coming: Christ returns as the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 19:11-16). The decisive battle of Armageddon takes place (Joel 3:12; Rev. 16:16; 19:17-21). 6. The Millenium (Christ's thousand-year reign) will follow. (Rev. 20:4-6). 7. A second resurrection will bring together all who have rejected Christ throughout the ages. They will be judged "according to their works, by the things which (are) written in the books" (Rev. 20:12) at the Great White Throne judgment, "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life (will be) cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15). 8. Finally, those who have been redeemed thought faith in Christ will begin their everlasting life in the "new heaven and new earth" (Rev. chapters 21-22).

Hey, just a typo correction on Item #8 (the last item): I meant to write "...those who have been redeemed through Christ..."
My apologies for the typo.

The comments have been only to point out that the utter loons under discussion are as wrong about the Bible as they are about everything else, because they're generally unhinged.

FL is more specifically unhinged, in his case because he thinks the Bible is an authority on, well, everything.

Well, it isn't.

FL said: Hmm. Now you Panda People are discussing Bible Prophecy? Hey, fine by me. But since you guys have brought it up, let's really check it out, okay?

Dave Luckett said: The comments have been only to point out that the utter loons under discussion are as wrong about the Bible as they are about everything else, because they're generally unhinged. FL is more specifically unhinged, in his case because he thinks the Bible is an authority on, well, everything. Well, it isn't.

Hell, Jesus couldn't even get it right prophesying how many days and nights he would be in the tomb before he arose. You'd think someone with the magic mojo to be resurrected would be able to count a few days.

This FL character presumes to predict the future using a book he can’t validate.

Yet he also presumes to know all about science, yet doesn’t even observe what is going on around him in nature.

The more he babbles, the worse FL’s cult looks. I would suggest that it is not much different from that Heaven’s Gate personality cult run by Marshall Applewhite.

Great, someone 2000 years ago has a dysentery dream, writes it down, and we're supposed to believe it's real.

Revelations is as weird as "In the Court of the Crimson King".

Hmmm... rock opera, anyone? :-) It could only be better than Prism's "Armageddon".

What?! I thought we have until December 21, 2011! That's totally illegal of them to change the date whenever they fancy! I am filing a complain to Jesus as soon as he comes, shifting the date of a event so frequently speaks of poor organization!

Casuals said: What?! I thought we have until December 21, 2011! That's totally illegal of them to change the date whenever they fancy! I am filing a complain to Jesus as soon as he comes, shifting the date of a event so frequently speaks of poor organization!

FL is having a couple of hours of intense angst and panicky searching of apologetics sites to come up with a rationalization for how Friday evening to Sunday morning (maybe 36 hours) = "3 days and 3 nights" (72 hours). (Matthew 12:40)

I know I am not the only one who realized that IF the bible is true, then this guy's calculations can't be true. I must admit that I'm not very familiar with the bible, but math is one thing I do know, so follow me here for a minute. To say that, "the extra year is accounted for re the zero year between the old and new testaments, between B.C. and A.D." shows that this guy can't even count. If you are counting the years between Noah's flood and the year the world is going to end, and the "zero year" is a year in between the two events, then that year still counts as part of the 7000 between the flood and the end of the world. If the flood occurred in the year 4990 B.C. then in the year 4989 B.C. it had been 1 year since the flood and in the year 4988 it had been 2 years since the flood, etc., and then in the year 1 B.C. it had been 4989 years since the flood. Then in the "zero year", the year between B.C. and A.D., it had been 4990 years since the flood. Then, in the year 1 A.D., it had been 4991 years since the flood. In 2 A.D., it had been 4992 years since the flood, etc. To get to the 7000th year since the flood, you'd have to be in the year 2010. So it looks like everyone missed it!

As for the end of the end of the world, 1 God day equals 1000 man years. That is how God apparently defines it in the bible. And though there is no rigid definition of 1 month in terms of days, 1 month equals 30 days plus or minus 2 days. So, if God says that "the unbelievers will have five months" then God is saying that unbelievers will have 150 days plus of minus 10 days. And by God's own definition of a day, that means unbelievers will have 150,000 years plus of minus 10,000 years. So if the beginning of the end of the world really was on May 11, 2010 then then end of the end of the world won't come until May 11, 152010 plus or minus 10,000 years.

Now, if we play a little game of deductive logic we figure out the following: if it is true that, if you are one of "his elect chosen from before the foundation of the world" then you "can discern the day", then it must also be true that if you cannot "discern the day" then you must not be on of "his elect chosen from before the foundation of the world." And since this guy couldn't discern the day, he must not be one of the elect chosen ones. Come to think of it, can someone name anyone who did proclaim May 11, 2010 as the end of the world? If not then it appears no one has been chosen. How sad and disappointing for all those people who think they are the specially chosen few.

FL said: Hmm. Now you Panda People are discussing Bible Prophecyancient Mediterranean stand-up routines

I would just like to point out that I did not post what was posted under the name "DS" at 3:14. I would suggest that whoever used that handle should consider using another one. Not that I disagree necessarily.

Apologies DS. I wasn't paying attention.

DRS said: Apologies DS. I wasn't paying attention.

Just Bob said: FL is having a couple of hours of intense angst and panicky searching of apologetics sites to come up with a rationalization for how Friday evening to Sunday morning (maybe 36 hours) = "3 days and 3 nights" (72 hours). (Matthew 12:40)

If the flood occurred in the year 4990 B.C. then in the year 4989 B.C. it had been 1 year since the flood and in the year 4988 it had been 2 years since the flood, etc., and then in the year 1 B.C. it had been 4989 years since the flood. Then in the “zero year”, the year between B.C. and A.D., it had been 4990 years since the flood. Then, in the year 1 A.D., it had been 4991 years since the flood. In 2 A.D., it had been 4992 years since the flood, etc. To get to the 7000th year since the flood, you’d have to be in the year 2010. So it looks like everyone missed it!

FL said: Hmm. Now you Panda People are discussing Bible Prophecy? Look here, you Panda People. Evolution is important, the question of origins is important, but your own future, your family's future, is important too. People are worried about the future in these uncertain, very troubled times. So are you willing to at least consider what the Bible says? If you have some questions about "Bible Prophecy" now that you've seen the biblical Laundry List, I'm willing to listen and try offering a response in this thread. Let's talk about it. FL

Ray M. said:

Roger said:

Ray Martinez said: Dear Nick: People like yourself who believe that apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years and animals eating and f*cking is the main "mechanism" causing biological production should not be snickering and making fun of the beliefs of other people.

But you make it so hard not to laugh at you when you believe animals having sex doesn't lead to reproduction. Please enlighten us by telling us how you think biological reproduction works so we can practice keeping a straight face.

We can offer no better evidence supporting the claim that Darwinists are deluded: all replies think animals f*cking is the "Creator." The delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God. This is why we are Creationists and IDists.

"I know a lot more about the literalists who focus on the beginning times than I do about the end-times guys." I agree fully.

FL said: Look here, you Panda People. Evolution is important, the question of origins is important, but your own future, your family's future, is important too.

People are worried about the future in these uncertain, very troubled times.

FL wrote:

"Hmm. Now you Panda People are discussing Bible Prophecy?

Look here, you Panda People. Evolution is important, the question of origins is important, but your own future, your family’s future, is important too."

Sur it is. That's why it is time to get out of the dark ages. That'a why science is so important. That's why it is so important to stop pretending that there are any answers in four thousand year old mythologies. Look dude, biblical prophecy isn't going to help us with global warming, genetic engineering, gene therapy, stem cell research, mass extinction, habitat destruction, alternative energy, etc.

Stop living in the past and start trying to help people here and now. Our future does depend on it. Trying to scare people into behaving the way you want them to with made up end-of-the-world nonsense is extremely counterproductive. Get a clue.

henry said:

Just Bob said: FL is having a couple of hours of intense angst and panicky searching of apologetics sites to come up with a rationalization for how Friday evening to Sunday morning (maybe 36 hours) = "3 days and 3 nights" (72 hours). (Matthew 12:40)

This is taken from ICR's website under Defender's Bible Notes. Matthew 12:40 12:40 three days and three nights. If “three days and three nights” is taken to mean literally seventy-two hours, ...

Dale Husband said:

FL said: Hmm. Now you Panda People are discussing Bible Prophecy? Look here, you Panda People. Evolution is important, the question of origins is important, but your own future, your family's future, is important too. People are worried about the future in these uncertain, very troubled times. So are you willing to at least consider what the Bible says? If you have some questions about "Bible Prophecy" now that you've seen the biblical Laundry List, I'm willing to listen and try offering a response in this thread. Let's talk about it. FL

Bible "prophecy" is one of the biggest frauds ever jammed up the collective butt of the human race. That's why we are discussing it, Foolish Liar. Can you explain why Jesus would claim that the generation that witnessed his first coming would live to see his second? (Matthew 24:34) It seems he is about 1900 years late.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)

The list of things Jesus said that generation would see included the arrival of the Son of Man on clouds of glory; angels and trumpet blasts; the sun darkening, the moon not giving light, and the stars falling.

But none of that happened, in actual, you know, plain fact. So, FL has no choice but to concede that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Figuratively. (In fact, he has to reach a long, long way into metaphor to get "spread of the Christian church" from "the Son of Man coming on clouds of glory".)

That's why it's impossible to reason with the likes of FL. He's perfectly happy to contradict himself, and he's so self-blind that he doesn't notice that he's doing it. Scripture is literal, and Jesus said so, except where it isn't, and FL will tell you where.

Like he'd know.

henry said: I agree with you that Bible "prophecy" is one of the biggest frauds. I would add evolution to that list. Both had the effect of eroding our Christian civilization.

Dave Luckett said: That's why it's impossible to reason with the likes of FL. He's perfectly happy to contradict himself, and he's so self-blind that he doesn't notice that he's doing it. Scripture is literal, and Jesus said so, except where it isn't, and FL will tell you where. Like he'd know.

henry said: I agree with you that Bible "prophecy" is one of the biggest frauds. I would add evolution to that list. Both had the effect of eroding our Christian civilization.

Henry, what specific reasons do you have to single out "evolution" for this criticism? If it indeed deserves it, I couldn't think of one reason that wouldn't apply to science in general.

Indeed, many of the outspoken atheist crowd insist that one cannot accept science and still buy religion. I
don't have a dog in that fight, but do you agree?

So Dave, do you have any refutation for the specific response that I gave to Eddie's specific text?

I don't think you do.

FL

FL said: So Dave, do you have any refutation for the specific response that I gave to Eddie's specific text? I don't think you do. FL

FL said: So Dave, do you have any refutation for the specific response that I gave to Eddie's specific text? I don't think you do. FL

The MadPanda, FCD said:

FL said: So Dave, do you have any refutation for the specific response that I gave to Eddie's specific text? I don't think you do. FL

Here's a refutation for you: demonstrate that your interpretation of the text is the only valid one possible. Show your work. Do not quote scripture. 'Cause I have a feeling there are a sizeable number of sects that would disagree with your findings.

Oh fucking hell, another theology wank.

FL said: So Dave, do you have any refutation for the specific response that I gave to Eddie's specific text? I don't think you do. FL

FL said: The short answer is that Jesus didn't say they'd skip out on death. Instead, he said they'd live long enough to see the coming and manifestation of Jesus, as King, in His kingly power and glory,

At any rate, Jesus kept his promise. His prophecy was fulfilled. Some of his disciples lived long enough to see the events take place,

How far up in your cult hierarchy have you moved? You must be getting pretty near the top by now. The fact that you keep showing up here apparently means you aren’t the top dog yet. Does the really gnaw at you?

Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?

Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!!!!

The character Pooh-Bah was "First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral... Archbishop of Titipu, Lord Mayor and Lord High Everything Else" in Gilbert and Sullivan's operatta The Mikado. For those whose horizons extend beyond the Flintstones.

Flint said: The character Pooh-Bah was "First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral... Archbishop of Titipu, Lord Mayor and Lord High Everything Else" in Gilbert and Sullivan's operatta The Mikado. For those whose horizons extend beyond the Flintstones.

FL said: You've got me dead to rights, Mike. You done busted me. I'm all gnawed. I confess I have always secretly coveted Fred Flintstone's designation of "Grand Exalted Poobah." It's the top of the line. Not there yet, but I'm gunnin' for it!!! And don't forget, like you said elsewhere, there's always that little matter of controlling the world.

Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?

Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!!!!

FL

you always run away when asked to demonstrate your knowledge...

FL said: No sense o' humor, boys! (Where's evolution when you need it?) ***

you always run away when asked to demonstrate your knowledge...

...Including the time I listed all the high school and university science courses I took, (which I got a "B" in all of them, and also took statistics on the side) just for you personally. Heh. :)

FL said: No sense o' humor, boys!

MrG said:

FL said: No sense o' humor, boys!

Sure. Didja hear the one about the busload of EVIL-utionists that fell off a cliff? It was a great tragedy -- five seats were empty. HarHarHarHar ...

Mike Elzinga said: I suspect that one went right over his head.

eric got there before me. The refutation of FL's statement that Jesus was speaking plain literal truth are the words of the prophecy itself, at Matthew 24:34: "The current generation will live to see it all."

Only they didn't.

FL wants it both ways. He needs Jesus to be speaking in parables and metaphors here, so he says that's what Jesus is doing. He needs Jesus to be speaking literally about the Flood, two verses later, so he says that's what he's doing. But FL wouldn't have a clue about either. What's actually happening is that FL is using Jesus as a sockpuppet.

It would be funny, kinda sorta, but I'm not laughing. Ain't it weird, that I'm an agnostic, and willing to treat what the man said with more respect than FL is?

FL said: The short answer is that Jesus didn't say they'd skip out on death. Instead, he said they'd live long enough to see the coming and manifestation of Jesus, as King, in His kingly power and glory, Since the context of the statement is Jesus's Transfiguration (an event in which Jesus literally shone like sunlight), a few scholars believe that's what he was talking about. A better choice seems to be the miraculous deeds and mass salvations of the Book of Acts, in which Jesus, as Luke said, literally displayed his kingly power and authority THROUGH the church, (through his disciples), as described in the biblical book "Acts of the Apostles".

[Behold], one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

[Four] great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Mike Elzinga said in response to FL: Repeated, boring snark on your part just isn’t getting you any mileage. Take it to the Bathroom Wall.

With minor caveats, I agree with eddie. But sometimes the forest can get lost in the trees. The point is this: FL's interpretation of most of the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 is that they are necessarily metaphorical. He has to say this, because it is simply not possible to take them as literally true. But FL says that at verse 35 they suddenly become absolutely literal. This is simply inconsistent, and it's self-serving, and (because FL is insisting that only his interpretation is correct) it is hubristic.

For FL doesn't merely state what he thinks Jesus's words mean. FL calls it inconsistent with Christian belief to think anything else. Spiritual pride and personal arrogance taken to such lengths - well, I'd call it damning, except I don't believe in damnation.

On the dating: As eddie knows, the reference to the destruction of the Temple at verse 2 of that chapter is usually taken to mean that Matthew's Gospel was written after 70 CE. By "early" for Matthew, I take eddie to mean "shortly after 70 CE", as in, not 90 CE or later. This, of course, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw.

FL said: No sense o' humor, boys! (Where's evolution when you need it?) ***

you always run away when asked to demonstrate your knowledge...

...Including the time I listed all the high school and university science courses I took, (which I got a "B" in all of them, and also took statistics on the side) just for you personally. Heh. :)

eddie said: And as for 'literally' shining like sunlight... what does that even mean?

Dave Luckett said: On the dating: As eddie knows, the reference to the destruction of the Temple at verse 2 of that chapter is usually taken to mean that Matthew's Gospel was written after 70 CE. By "early" for Matthew, I take eddie to mean "shortly after 70 CE", as in, not 90 CE or later. This, of course, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw.

eddie said: I'm prepared to push proto-Matthew back before 62. Although it's a long time since I read it, I recall being very impressed by Robinson's case for this.

Dave Luckett said:

eddie said: I'm prepared to push proto-Matthew back before 62. Although it's a long time since I read it, I recall being very impressed by Robinson's case for this.

I regret that I am not so convinced. Robinson's case for a pre-70 date rests on his assumptions that Jesus prognosticated the destruction of the Temple correctly and and this was accurately recorded at the time, and that the Evangelist was not so sophisticated as to understand that prophecies that were known to be true among others that hadn't come true yet (but were extremely apocalyptic) were just as convincing as a 100% record - more so, perhaps. I think at least the last of these is an assumption too far. But this is a matter on which reasonable minds may differ.

Yeah, that's the bloke. His argument was that the prophecies listed in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24-5) that seem to refer to the Judean War - the destruction of the Temple, and so on - were not fully consistent with the course of that war and hence must have been written down before it, because the Gospel writer would not have recorded prophecies that weren't fully accurate.

Doesn't follow, for mine. Or shall we say, I think it doesn't meet the test of least hypothesis.

Sorry, that should read in part: "...because the Gospel writer would not have recorded prophecies that weren't fully accurate if he'd been writing ex post facto."

Dave Luckett said: Yeah, that's the bloke. His argument was that the prophecies listed in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24-5) that seem to refer to the Judean War - the destruction of the Temple, and so on - were not fully consistent with the course of that war and hence must have been written down before it, because the Gospel writer would not have recorded prophecies that weren't fully accurate. Doesn't follow, for mine. Or shall we say, I think it doesn't meet the test of least hypothesis.

I fail to see any motive for preserving, let alone inventing, prophecies long after the dust had settled in Judaea, unless it be to present Jesus as a prognosticator of uncanny accuracy (in which case the evangelists have defeated the exercise by including palpably unfulfilled predictions). It would seem much more likely, as the form critics have taught us to expect, that these sayings, like the rest, were adapted to the use of the church when and as they were relevant to its immediate needs.

Stanton said:

henry said: I agree with you that Bible "prophecy" is one of the biggest frauds. I would add evolution to that list. Both had the effect of eroding our Christian civilization.

If Evolution is a fraud, then how come we continue seeing it occur in nature? How does breeding new dog breeds or witnessing the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria "erode Christian civilization"? Wouldn't using one's faith in Jesus to reject reality, and attacking other people for not using their faith in Jesus to remain as ignorant idiots erode "Christian civilization" a lot quicker?

eddie said: Robinson doesn't say that the prophecies were fulfilled, he says that the early Church read them as fulfilled prophecies. There's a big difference:

Robinson: I fail to see any motive for preserving, let alone inventing, prophecies long after the dust had settled in Judaea, unless it be to present Jesus as a prognosticator of uncanny accuracy (in which case the evangelists have defeated the exercise by including palpably unfulfilled predictions).

It would seem much more likely, as the form critics have taught us to expect, that these sayings, like the rest, were adapted to the use of the church when and as they were relevant to its immediate needs.

Dave Luckett said: No. Matthew (as we have it) is after 70, for mine. Maybe not long after, but about then.

henry said: We don't see evolution in nature. We see new dog breeds because they have the different characteristics built in already. The new breeds are still dogs. They will never be anything but dogs.

henry said: We see new dog breeds because ...

If anyone is actually interested in learning about mutations in dogs, there is a good review article freely available online:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000310

This article outlines some of the genetic mechanisms of mutation and also examines some of the implications of these mutations for human genetics. There is also a nice discussion of linkage disequilibrium. Bottom line, everyone already knows that the nonsense Henry is spouting is absolutely contradicted by all of the evidence.

Anyway. all of this belongs on the dog thread. Maybe Henry already got bounced from there and is just trying to make noise anywhere he can. It's a sign of the end times I tells ya.

DS said: It's a sign of the end times I tells ya.

You never listed where you went to high school or university.

MrG said:

henry said: We see new dog breeds because ...

Henry, we can all find the AIG website and read this stuff there. What good reason do you have to just recycle ancient Henry Morris arguments that everybody's heard a thousand times before? You're boring us.

FL said: Interesting discussion, Eddie and Dave. Good to see that. Meanwhile:

You never listed where you went to high school or university.

Sure. Highland Park HS, Washburn University. You?

I mean, from all of the false statements and stupid lies FL has made about science all these years suggest that either FL is lying through his teeth about having gotten "B"'s in science, or that his science teachers were lying, pompous idiots exactly like him.

henry said: We don't see evolution in nature.

We see new dog breeds because they have the different characteristics built in already. The new breeds are still dogs. They will never be anything but dogs.

The six mainline denominations were hijacked by the liberals roughly a hundred years ago.Part of the liberal theology included acceptance of evolution. Since that time, the membership of these denominations remained stagnant even though the US population grew about 4 times during the same period. The U.S. population grew by more than 205 million people during the century, more than tripling from 76 million in 1900 to 281 million in 2000. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa122102a.htm

FL said: Interesting discussion, Eddie and Dave. Good to see that. Meanwhile:

You never listed where you went to high school or university.

Sure. Highland Park HS, Washburn University. You?

John Kwok said: Judging by your all too typical resortment to breathtaking inanity, I would venture to guess that you merely took up space at both institutions:

FL said: Interesting discussion, Eddie and Dave. Good to see that. Meanwhile:

You never listed where you went to high school or university.

Sure. Highland Park HS, Washburn University. You?

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: Judging by your all too typical resortment to breathtaking inanity, I would venture to guess that you merely took up space at both institutions:

FL said: Interesting discussion, Eddie and Dave. Good to see that. Meanwhile:

You never listed where you went to high school or university.

Sure. Highland Park HS, Washburn University. You?

As did Gish, Morris, Parker, Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Purdom, Lisle, and all the other ID/creationists who continually mangle the science despite repeated reminders that they are doing so. Waving around degrees and where they are from has become one of the hallmarks of creationist charlatanism. The more degrees, the more the mangling. The letters after their names are for intimidation and to induce and air of false credibility. But they can't function in the science community, in the lab, and in the field. They always muck it all up. Professional klutzes.

henry said: The six mainline denominations were hijacked by the liberals roughly a hundred years ago. Part of the liberal theology included acceptance of evolution. Since that time, the membership of these denominations remained stagnant even though the US population grew about 4 times during the same period.

John_S said:

henry said: The six mainline denominations were hijacked by the liberals roughly a hundred years ago. Part of the liberal theology included acceptance of evolution. Since that time, the membership of these denominations remained stagnant even though the US population grew about 4 times during the same period.

The theological arguments against a literal interpretation of Genesis (and the Bible in general) were put forth by Augustine of Hippo (aka "St. Augustine") in the 4th century. Not "roughly a hundred years ago" - try over 1,600 years ago. Augustine was considered one of the four Christian Latin "fathers of the church" (along with Ambrose, Jerome and Gregory); and based largely on his teachings, the Catholic Church has never advocated a literal interpretation of Genesis. This theology flowed into most Christian sects despite the 16th century Reformation. While Islam and the various personality-based quasi-Christian sects such as the LDS and the Jehovah's Witnesses have always had their own views, it's only in the last century or so that strict biblical literalism has been widely promoted, mostly by Baptists and their various independent fundamentalist offshoots, and mostly in the US. "Liberal", it would seem, is just your code word for "anyone who disagrees with MY beliefs".

henry, quoting Rod D Martin, referencing J Gresham Machen, said: liberalism and Christianity are separate things: rival religions, permanently at war.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

henry said: We don't see evolution in nature.

You need to get out of the cloister and, like, read a few zillion science papers, bucky. Let's start with a wonderful recent example: Lenski.

We see new dog breeds because they have the different characteristics built in already. The new breeds are still dogs. They will never be anything but dogs.

Riiiiight. So those Siberian foxes that acquired doglike characteristics were, what? An illusion? Argument fails.

The six mainline denominations were hijacked by the liberals roughly a hundred years ago.Part of the liberal theology included acceptance of evolution. Since that time, the membership of these denominations remained stagnant even though the US population grew about 4 times during the same period. The U.S. population grew by more than 205 million people during the century, more than tripling from 76 million in 1900 to 281 million in 2000. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa122102a.htm

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. I give you an F for Failure. Go stand in the corner. Here's your pointy hat. Don't bother trying again. You clearly have nothing.

Dave Luckett said:

henry, quoting Rod D Martin, referencing J Gresham Machen, said: liberalism and Christianity are separate things: rival religions, permanently at war.

Well, that's fair enough, for certain definitions of the word "fair". Charles Dodgson once wrote that an arguer should be allowed to argue in strict accordance with the meaning the arguer assigns to words. (In this he was at odds with standard communication theory, as currently understood.) And if you define "liberalism" as "the idea that definitions of ethical behaviour should and must change according to circumstances, or that it is possible for law to change", and "Christianity" as "strict, eternal and undeviating adherence to the text of the Scriptures as defined", then Machen was right. Machen's "liberalism" and his "Christianity" are rival religions, and they are at war. A difficulty, and two observations. The difficulty: neither "liberalism" nor "Christianity" actually mean those things in real life to most people, including most practicing Christians. Machen, hence Martin, hence henry, are only right if the peculiarly deformed meaning they give to those words is accepted. Plainly, it isn't accepted. Therefore they are wrong. But the observations. Charles Dodgson was also the bloke who wrote Humpty Dumpty's notion about the meaning of words, thus pointing out the absurdity of his own position, if it were taken to its logical conclusion. He was honest, you see, which Machen isn't. And secondly: it is the legitimate function of the secular State to prevent religious fanatics from engaging in religious wars. Indeed, that is one of its founding principles, and one of the most cogent reasons for its existence. If what Machen describes as "liberalism" and "Christianity" were indeed engaged in a religious war, then it is the business of the State to prevent it. Hence, those who want to have a war will find that the law of the State will be used against them. That's man's law, if you like. But see, if you're a religious whackaloon who wants to have a war, I don't give a good goddam what you'd like.

Another beautiful example of Humpty Dumpty.

henry, by "war" I meant what most people actually mean by the word. You know, guns, shells, people getting shot, cities being firebombed, that sort of thing. I don't mean doctrinal differences leading to schisms, with the whackaloons forming their own churches in a furious attempt to take their ball and go home, which is apparently what you mean by it.

"War" in your sense is pretty much the default condition for you sectaries and fanatics. You guys all hate each other's guts, pretty much. But the reason why your nasty little conflicts don't rise to what most people mean by the word "war" these days is the secular State.

That's actually why we have a secular State. That's why we're going to keep on having a secular State. And we're going to keep that State secular, because our lives and our liberty depend on it, which means keeping religion out of it. Including out of its schools.

It's happened, henry. I know you don't like it, but it's happened anyway. Raking over the coals of eighty-odd year old religious controversies is useless, irrelevant and stupid. The State is secular. Its schools are secular. Deal with it. Or don't, I don't give a stuff. But step outside the law of the State in opposition to it, and you'll find yourself someplace where you have to get up really early in the morning.

henry said: ... It wasn't the orthodox Christians who wanted war--it was the liberals. After they gained control of the Presbyterian Church, they booted Machen out of the denomination, ...

Sorry henry, but we do see evolution in nature. Look up Peter and Rosemary Grant's decades-long study of the Galapagos Finches. As for dogs, you obviously missed this fine blog post from Nick Matzke here recently:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/07/intraspecific-m.html#more

And you might want to allow your delusional intellectually-challenged mind the opportunity to look at this Talk Origins post which refers to the discovery of a new mosquito species in the London Underground which was reported over a decade ago. In plain English, in less than one hundred and fifty years there was a successful speciation event in the London Underground subway system:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDIot Borg drone),

John Kwok

Henry said: “This theological liberalism manifests itself in many ways, but is chiefly characterized by a rejection of Scripture as infallibly inspired, a denial of the doctrines of the Fall and of Hell, and a belief in man’s evolutionary self-perfection (process theology, with progress guided by an “enlightened” elite).”

John_S said: If a “theological liberalism manifests itself … by a rejection of Scripture as infallibly inspired, a denial of the doctrines of the Fall and of Hell, and a belief in man’s evolutionary self-perfection”, who are these “theological liberals”? I don’t know of any major Christian denomination that rejects the infallibility of scripture, although they may reject the infallibility of yours and Machen’s interpretation of scripture. And what Christian denies the existence of Hell or the Fall?

SWT said: Regarding belief in hell, check out the Pew Religious Landscape Survey -- 30% of respondents from mainline churches and 27% of Roman Catholics believe there is no hell.

henry said: Feb 1, 2004 The Dogma of Evolution by Frank Sherwin, M.A. Creationists maintain that dogs were created as dogs and will always be dogs including their dog varieties such as hyenas, wolves, foxes, and jackals. An interesting statement is made by evolutionist Peter Savolainen in the journal Science and sounds almost like he is referring to a pair of dogs trotting off the Ark, "we can say now there was probably one geographic origin [of dogs]."6 Evolutionist E. H. Colbert suggests this geographic area as eastern Turkey7 — the Mt. Ararat region! Dogs undoubtedly followed people during their post-Flood migration, which included crossing a possible land bridge between Asia and North America.8 Indeed, according to DNA taken from fossil canines, dogs of the Western Hemisphere have Asian ancestries. _____________________________ 1. Pennisi, E., "A Shaggy Dog History" Science, Nov. 22, 2002, v. 298, p. 1540. 2. Trefil, J., 101 Things You Don't Know about Science, Mariner Books, 1996, p. 289. 3. Morell, V., "The Origin of Dogs," Science, June 13, 1997, v. 276, p. 1647. 4. Pennisi, p. 1541 (see also T. Gura, Nature, v. 406, pp. 230-233). 5. Pennisi, p. 1540. 6. Morell, p. 1647. 7. Colbert, E., Evolution of the Vertebrates, 5th ed., Wiley-Liss, p. 381. 8. Pennisi, p. 1541.

John Kwok said: Sorry henry, but we do see evolution in nature. Look up Peter and Rosemary Grant's decades-long study of the Galapagos Finches. As for dogs, you obviously missed this fine blog post from Nick Matzke here recently: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/07/intraspecific-m.html#more And you might want to allow your delusional intellectually-challenged mind the opportunity to look at this Talk Origins post which refers to the discovery of a new mosquito species in the London Underground which was reported over a decade ago. In plain English, in less than one hundred and fifty years there was a successful speciation event in the London Underground subway system: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDIot Borg drone), John Kwok

henry said:

John Kwok said: Sorry henry, but we do see evolution in nature. Look up Peter and Rosemary Grant's decades-long study of the Galapagos Finches. As for dogs, you obviously missed this fine blog post from Nick Matzke here recently: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/07/intraspecific-m.html#more And you might want to allow your delusional intellectually-challenged mind the opportunity to look at this Talk Origins post which refers to the discovery of a new mosquito species in the London Underground which was reported over a decade ago. In plain English, in less than one hundred and fifty years there was a successful speciation event in the London Underground subway system: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDIot Borg drone), John Kwok

As the unofficial ambassador to the Klingon empire, I'm sure you're aware of the only tour in Australia which is conducted solely in Klingon. After 150 years, the mosquito is still a mosquito in London, though there are changes, which shows that it is programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. The same goes for finches and dogs.

henry said: After 150 years, the mosquito is still a mosquito in London, though there are changes, which shows that it is programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. The same goes for finches and dogs.

Dave Luckett said: Another beautiful example of Humpty Dumpty. henry, by "war" I meant what most people actually mean by the word. You know, guns, shells, people getting shot, cities being firebombed, that sort of thing. I don't mean doctrinal differences leading to schisms, with the whackaloons forming their own churches in a furious attempt to take their ball and go home, which is apparently what you mean by it. "War" in your sense is pretty much the default condition for you sectaries and fanatics. You guys all hate each other's guts, pretty much. But the reason why your nasty little conflicts don't rise to what most people mean by the word "war" these days is the secular State. That's actually why we have a secular State. That's why we're going to keep on having a secular State. And we're going to keep that State secular, because our lives and our liberty depend on it, which means keeping religion out of it. Including out of its schools. It's happened, henry. I know you don't like it, but it's happened anyway. Raking over the coals of eighty-odd year old religious controversies is useless, irrelevant and stupid. The State is secular. Its schools are secular. Deal with it. Or don't, I don't give a stuff. But step outside the law of the State in opposition to it, and you'll find yourself someplace where you have to get up really early in the morning.

The MadPanda, FCD said:

henry said: Feb 1, 2004 The Dogma of Evolution by Frank Sherwin, M.A. Creationists maintain that dogs were created as dogs and will always be dogs including their dog varieties such as hyenas, wolves, foxes, and jackals. An interesting statement is made by evolutionist Peter Savolainen in the journal Science and sounds almost like he is referring to a pair of dogs trotting off the Ark, "we can say now there was probably one geographic origin [of dogs]."6 Evolutionist E. H. Colbert suggests this geographic area as eastern Turkey7 — the Mt. Ararat region! Dogs undoubtedly followed people during their post-Flood migration, which included crossing a possible land bridge between Asia and North America.8 Indeed, according to DNA taken from fossil canines, dogs of the Western Hemisphere have Asian ancestries. _____________________________ 1. Pennisi, E., "A Shaggy Dog History" Science, Nov. 22, 2002, v. 298, p. 1540. 2. Trefil, J., 101 Things You Don't Know about Science, Mariner Books, 1996, p. 289. 3. Morell, V., "The Origin of Dogs," Science, June 13, 1997, v. 276, p. 1647. 4. Pennisi, p. 1541 (see also T. Gura, Nature, v. 406, pp. 230-233). 5. Pennisi, p. 1540. 6. Morell, p. 1647. 7. Colbert, E., Evolution of the Vertebrates, 5th ed., Wiley-Liss, p. 381. 8. Pennisi, p. 1541.

Way to avoid any actual discussion of the topic. Compared to the mountain of actual evidence about canines, all you come up with is this pathetic drivel? "Creationists maintain" a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up. Try again.

Nice try, henry, but it doesn't work, because the varied definitions of "war" was the very thing I was pointing out.

And a more comprehensive missing of the point would be difficult to find. The point is this: we no longer have religious wars between western states. They happened between non-state players up until quite recently, and sometimes still happen between states outside the west, even now. But the reason we no longer have religious wars between western states, after centuries of them, is that western states are secular, under secular government.

No western state in practice actually defines itself in terms of a religious affiliation. No western state gives preference to any religion. The reason for this is because doing that produces religious conflict up to and including actual war. Real war, that is, henry, not in the metaphorical senses of the word. (Metaphor is one of those things that you guys don't get, isn't it?)

So the western secular state depends on no preference for any religion, for the good and sufficient reason that its people should not have to suffer religious conflict and war. That means the state does not assist, spread, teach or prosyletise for any religion. Including yours, henry, but also including any other.

I wonder what do you think of LBJ’s War on Poverty? or the War on Drugs? or the War on Terror?

I think you've given great examples indicating that the word has been swift-boat-gated into uselessness by mindless ad technicians.

How is the secular state doing in protecting our borders?

oh, I'm sorry, I had you confused with someone who doesn't post non-sequitors.

I'll leave you to yourself.

henry said: … It wasn’t the orthodox Christians who wanted war–it was the liberals. After they gained control of the Presbyterian Church, they booted Machen out of the denomination, …

henry said: No comments on Colbert and Savolainen?

DS said:

henry said: After 150 years, the mosquito is still a mosquito in London, though there are changes, which shows that it is programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. The same goes for finches and dogs.

So Henry, you decided not to read the paper about dog evolution that I posted. What a surprise. The paper contains evidence of the mutations that have occurred in the dog genome, when and where they occurred, the morphologies that they affect and the interactions between different traits that are evolving simultaneously. The information was not "programmed in". The mutations arose randomly over time. You have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary. As for mosquitos and finches, they have demonstrably evolved into new species. This was not programmed in either. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that it was. The scientific papers that you cite do NOT support your baseless contentions, quite the contrary. Quoting a creationist interpretation of the evidence that proves that dogs evolved is not going to get you anywhere. Give it up lad. You is toast. Now if you want to discuss the evolution of evolvability, that might be an interesting discussion. But it has nothing to do with planning, foresight, intelligence or programming.

henry said:

DS said:

henry said: After 150 years, the mosquito is still a mosquito in London, though there are changes, which shows that it is programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. The same goes for finches and dogs.

So Henry, you decided not to read the paper about dog evolution that I posted. What a surprise. The paper contains evidence of the mutations that have occurred in the dog genome, when and where they occurred, the morphologies that they affect and the interactions between different traits that are evolving simultaneously. The information was not "programmed in". The mutations arose randomly over time. You have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary. As for mosquitos and finches, they have demonstrably evolved into new species. This was not programmed in either. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that it was. The scientific papers that you cite do NOT support your baseless contentions, quite the contrary. Quoting a creationist interpretation of the evidence that proves that dogs evolved is not going to get you anywhere. Give it up lad. You is toast. Now if you want to discuss the evolution of evolvability, that might be an interesting discussion. But it has nothing to do with planning, foresight, intelligence or programming.

Do you have a link to your paper?

henry said:

DS said:

henry said: After 150 years, the mosquito is still a mosquito in London, though there are changes, which shows that it is programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. The same goes for finches and dogs.

So Henry, you decided not to read the paper about dog evolution that I posted. What a surprise. The paper contains evidence of the mutations that have occurred in the dog genome, when and where they occurred, the morphologies that they affect and the interactions between different traits that are evolving simultaneously. The information was not "programmed in". The mutations arose randomly over time. You have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary. As for mosquitos and finches, they have demonstrably evolved into new species. This was not programmed in either. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that it was. The scientific papers that you cite do NOT support your baseless contentions, quite the contrary. Quoting a creationist interpretation of the evidence that proves that dogs evolved is not going to get you anywhere. Give it up lad. You is toast. Now if you want to discuss the evolution of evolvability, that might be an interesting discussion. But it has nothing to do with planning, foresight, intelligence or programming.

Do you have a link to your paper?

Stanton said:

henry said:

DS said:

henry said: After 150 years, the mosquito is still a mosquito in London, though there are changes, which shows that it is programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. The same goes for finches and dogs.

So Henry, you decided not to read the paper about dog evolution that I posted. What a surprise. The paper contains evidence of the mutations that have occurred in the dog genome, when and where they occurred, the morphologies that they affect and the interactions between different traits that are evolving simultaneously. The information was not "programmed in". The mutations arose randomly over time. You have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary. As for mosquitos and finches, they have demonstrably evolved into new species. This was not programmed in either. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that it was. The scientific papers that you cite do NOT support your baseless contentions, quite the contrary. Quoting a creationist interpretation of the evidence that proves that dogs evolved is not going to get you anywhere. Give it up lad. You is toast. Now if you want to discuss the evolution of evolvability, that might be an interesting discussion. But it has nothing to do with planning, foresight, intelligence or programming.

Do you have a link to your paper?

I would recommend that you try searching "culex molestans london underground mosquito" in scholar.google.com , but, you're too much of the typical lazy, arrogant ass of a creationist to consider this, always demanding that we spoonfeed you evidence just so you can deliberately intend spit it back in our faces.

henry said: Do you have a link to your paper?

Of course there are only variations within the kind (well, except for hybridizations and horizontal transfers, if you want to be picky). Birds and mammals are varieties of the reptile kind. reptiles are varieties of the amphibian kind, which are varieties of the fish kind, which are varieties of the bilateral kind, which are varieties of the animal kind. Er, what was the question again?

Henry

henry said: I think you meant culex molestus. We're still talking about mosquitoes, not some higher, more complex species. Whether we're discussing dogs, finches, etc., they remain dogs, finches, etc. None of the creation scientists I've read deny changes happen, contrary to the claims usually made here. Their observation is there isn't macroevolution occurring, no vertical change, only variations within the kind.

henry said: It wasn't the orthodox Christians who wanted war--it was the liberals. After they gained control of the Presbyterian Church, they booted Machen out of the denomination, which showed that their claim of peace and tolerance were just meaningless words. Useful when they were in the minority but when they took control, no more tolerance. Fortunately, the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention were able to defeat the liberals for the time being. The liberals in any denomination seemed to only want to takeover their denomination rather than start their own. If they disagree with the statement of faith, or confession, or orthodox position, then they should do the hard work and build their own church.

Come on Henry. Wes a waitin. I posted the link about dog evolution nearly three weeks ago. I challenged you to explain the evidence nearly two weeks ago. Now you are asking for the link? Come on dude, it's like free, ya know. I'm sure you will easily be able to understand it. SInce you know all about what is and isn't known in science. I'm sure you keep up with all of the scientific literature, right?

Why is it that none of these yahoos will ever read a even a single paper, even after they demand to see the paper? Just another guy who want to play tennis but lacks the balls.

Dale Husband said:

It wasn't the Liberal Christians who wanted war--it was the Fundamentalist bigots. After they lost control of the Northern Presbyterian Church, Machen left the denomination and founded his own, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which showed that their claims of love and brotherhood in Jesus were just meaningless words. Useful when they were in power but when they lost control, no more desire for unity and mutual respect.

That is my counter to henry's delusional claim earlier.

To be fair, Machen proved only that what goes around comes around. After he founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a faction even more rigid in its fundamentalism broke away from his group to form the Bible Presbyterian Church. One of the issues that split them apart was whether alcohol consumption should be allowed, despite the clear Biblical accounts of Jesus doing things like turning water into wine.

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

These extremists later helped found the "Religious Right", which Machen never would have accepted. Ironic, eh?

henry, the mosquito is just as complex a lifeform as you are. It is not "simple" just because it's smaller than you, or less "intelligent", whatever we mean by that interesting word. Your attempt to differentiate between "simple" and "complex" lifeforms in those terms is only ignorance and nothing more.

When are you going to admit that your comprehensive ignorance of the nature of living things disqualifies you for making statements about the origin of life?

henry, the mosquito is just as complex a lifeform as you are.

perhaps slightly less annoying, though.

Dale Husband said: To be fair, Machen proved only that what goes around comes around. After he founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a faction even more rigid in its fundamentalism broke away from his group to form the Bible Presbyterian Church. One of the issues that split them apart was whether alcohol consumption should be allowed, despite the clear Biblical accounts of Jesus doing things like turning water into wine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Presbyterian_Church These extremists later helped found the "Religious Right", which Machen never would have accepted. Ironic, eh?

Therefore, they consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal, and unalienable: they do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and, at the same time, equal and common to all others.

Although the synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon other men's consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with and abhorrence of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another, as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven ... And the Synod do solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those that differ from us in these extra-essential and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such Sentiments.

Gratefully acknowledging the distinguished bounty and care of Almighty God towards this favored land, and also recognizing our obligations to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, this General Assembly adopts the following resolutions: 1. Resolved, That in view of the present agitated and unhappy condition of this country, the first day of July next be hereby set apart as a day of prayer throughout our bounds; and that on that day ministers and people are called on humbly to confess and bewail our national sins; to offer our thanks to the Father of light for his abundant and undeserved goodness to us as a nation; to seek his guidance and blessing upon our rulers and their counsels, as well as on the Congress of the United States about to assemble; and to implore Him, in the name of Jesus Christ, the great High Priest of the Christian profession, to turn away his anger from us, and speedily restore to us the blessings of an honorable peace. 2. Resolved, That this General Assembly, in the spirit of that Christian patriotism which the Scriptures enjoin, and which has always characterized this Church, do hereby acknowledge and declare our obligations to promote and perpetuate, so far as in us lies, the integrity of these United States, and to strengthen, uphold, and encourage the Federal Government in the exercise of all its functions under our noble Constitution; and to this Constitution in all its provisions, requirements, and principles, we profess our unabated loyalty.

I would most solemnly, yet respectfully, protest against the adoption by this Assembly, of the second resolution of the minority report of the Committee on the present state of the country, not because I am opposed to the patriotic sentiments therein expressed, for I recognize it to be my duty, as a citizen of the United States, especially urgent in this time of our country's peril, to do all in my power to sustain the Government in all its constitutional efforts to suppress rebellion against all authority, and to preserve the integrity of the Union. But I hold it to be made the duty of the Assembly by the Constitution of the Church, to abstain from all political deliverances, and to confine itself exclusively to ecclesiastical action.

We make this protest, not because we do not acknowledge loyalty to our country to be a moral and religious duty, according to the word of God, which requires us to be subject to the powers that be; nor because we deny the right of the Assembly to enjoin that, and all other like duties, on the ministers and churches under its care; but because we deny the right of the General Assembly to decide the political question, to what government the allegiance of Presbyterians as citizens is due, and its rights to make that decision a condition of membership in our Church. ... The General Assembly has always acted on the principle that the Church has no right to make anything a condition of Christian or ministerial fellowship, which is not enjoined or required in the Scriptures and the Standards of the Church. We have, at one time, resisted the popular demand to make total abstinence from intoxicating liquors a term of membership.

Machen's opposition to Prohibition was a major reason for the General Assembly's failure to confirm his nomination. As one of his friends later told him, the Assembly was "rabidly Prohibitionist"; commissioners could not understand why a good Christian would not support such an obviously good and biblical cause. Machen opposed Presbyterian support for Prohibition, however, not because he approved of drunkenness or preferred unpopularity. Rather he did so for important theological—even Reformed—reasons. In a statement defending his position (never published again because of the damage his friends believed it would have done) Machen argued that the church had no legitimate rationale for taking a side in this political question. Aside from the question of the relations between church and state, he believed that the church was bound by the Word of God and so all of its declarations and resolutions had to have clear Scriptural warrant. The Bible did not, however, provide support for Prohibition. It taught the idea of temperance, that is, moderate consumption of alcohol and the other good things of God's creation. This meant that Scripture forbade inebriation. But even here the Bible did not give directions to government officials for abolishing drunkenness. Should this be a matter for the federal government to regulate or should states and local governments? Was legislation the best way to shape public sentiment or was an educational program more effective? Was regulation of private citizens' behavior even a proper concern of the state? The Bible did not answer these and various other questions. So, Machen concluded, the church had no business meddling in the politics of Prohibition or any other matter where Scripture did not speak.

A need for greater recognition could possibly explain Machen's motivation to write Christianity and Liberalism, but such an explanation ignores his genuine ambivalence regarding the fundamentalist movement with which his book became so closely associated. Machen stood for practically everything that fundamentalism did not. Where fundamentalists were anti-creedal and anti-clerical, Machen's instincts were confessional and churchly; where fundamentalists had the reputation of being rural and anti-intellectual, Machen thrived in urban and academic settings. What is more, he regarded fundamentalist eschatology (i.e., dispensationalism) as bizarre and extreme, avoided altogether the crusade against evolution even though invited to testify at the Scopes trial, and viewed United States' politics in ways remarkably different from fundamentalists - Machen opposed prayer and Bible reading in public schools and the churches' support for Prohibition because he did not believe America was a Christian nation.

Still a waitin Henry old boy. Now why did you demand a link to the article if you wasn't gonna read it? Fraid to admit you was wrong? Fess up lad. Its OK. We all make mistakes. At least now you have learned to read the literature first before pontificating about things you know nothing about.

Come on man. You can be the first creationist to read a real paper. EVER! Go for it man. You can at least try a quote mine or two. All you have to do is assume that no one else will read the paper, then you can just make stuff up that wasn't even in there.

See the thing is Henry, that you will have to came up with a better explanation for all of the genetic evidence than the one provided by evolution. Notice that all of the evidence is exactly what is predicted if evolution is true. Now all you have to do is to show how your hypothesis better explains the evidence. You can start by predicting what the evidence should look like if your hypothesis is correct. In fact, you should do that before reading the paper. Then everyone will know that you have more than just post-hoc reasoning.

Still waitin Henry.

Done waitin Henry.

Next time you demand an article, I will politely refer you to this thread. It's one thing to be wrong, it's another thing to be ignorant and it's something else entirely to be willfully ignorant. If you want to play, come back when you get some balls. Game, set and match.

henry said: Whether we're discussing dogs, finches, etc., they remain dogs, finches, etc.