Child abuse indeed

She is also interested in studying the formation of stromatolites, animal speciation after the Flood, and the Intelligent Design Movement.

Radiometric dating for 1st through 3rd graders! WTF

I don't think I'd call it child abuse, but I do feel that teaching fraud and bigotry to children, especially by a professional con artist who happens to have a Ph.D, is a scandal of Biblical proportions. Pun intended.

Dr. Purdom’s scientific research focuses on the roles of natural selection and mutation in microbial populations. She seeks to understand the original, created, “very good” roles of bacteria in the pre-Fall world and genetic mechanisms that have led to their adaptations and pathogenicity in a post-Fall world.

This is sad. People are in a position of trust and they abuse it. Instead of teaching our children to think for themselves.
And as a microbiologist I find her "research" offensive.

That’s child abuse of a very high order, worse even than Freshwater’s because the children are so much younger. Those kids are screwed.

Do we really want our children to walk away from their science classrooms thinking that it is wrong to question the scientific establishment and just accept whatever the scientific experts say? Absolutely not! Good observational/operational science is based on the principles of questioning and attempting to falsify scientific findings. Where would we be today in our understanding and treatment of disease if we had just accepted from the scientists of the past that disease was caused by bad air or “vapors”? We needed scientists like Louis Pasteur to question and falsify these ideas. --Dr. Georgia Purdom

And I note with some interest that my new governor does not consider me his brother, in a context where I am clearly considered an inferior.

Are all "brothers and sisters"? As part of the human race, yes. But for believers in Christ, there is a familial link unknown to those who do not believe. The New Testament writers used such terms as fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters in writing to Christian believers, whether Jew or Gentile. --Central Bible Chapel

The family built on lies and ignorance? No thanks.

RBH said: That’s child abuse of a very high order, worse even than Freshwater’s because the children are so much younger. Those kids are screwed.

No worries, children are used to being told lies. Santa brings you presents, the tooth fairy takes your teeth, the easter bunny does whatever the hell it does, and dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. These kids will grow up, realize they were lies, and move on with their lives.

An extreme sign of weakness and lack of true faith on the part of this woman.

Children of that age won't be able to understand what she's talking about, so it's essentially telling them generically not to believe what they learn in school.

It's a finger in the dike tactic. Trying to reduce the percentage that will inevitably learn that they are being lied to.

Of interest, she was presumably able to tolerate science classes well enough to go through the motions to get a PhD, for better or for worse, and remain a creationist. But she doesn't seem to trust the kids to be able to do the same thing.

I have some trepidations about the use of the term "child abuse" here.

That term has a legal meaning in almost every jurisdiction.

Although this woman is horrifically lying to children, she is also merely "teaching" them culturally sanctioned religious dogma with the consent of the parents.

She's lying to children in order to brainwash them against the science education that she fears they may be exposed to later, because her particular cult denies mainstream science.

Whether it's child abuse or not is debatable. Whether it's obnoxious isn't.

That’s child abuse of a very high order, worse even than Freshwater’s because the children are so much younger. Those kids are screwed.

— Richard B. Hoppe

FL said:

Do we really want our children to walk away from their science classrooms thinking that it is wrong to question the scientific establishment and just accept whatever the scientific experts say? Absolutely not! Good observational/operational science is based on the principles of questioning and attempting to falsify scientific findings. Where would we be today in our understanding and treatment of disease if we had just accepted from the scientists of the past that disease was caused by bad air or “vapors”? We needed scientists like Louis Pasteur to question and falsify these ideas. --Dr. Georgia Purdom

Hmm. Sounds like science education, not child abuse. But no matter. Go ahead and file a lawsuit for child abuse, RBH. Betcha won't win. At all. Period. FL

Bob said: No worries, children are used to being told lies. Santa brings you presents, the tooth fairy takes your teeth, the easter bunny does whatever the hell it does, and dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. These kids will grow up, realize they were lies, and move on with their lives.

Dale Husband said: Why is it that Creationists are willing to question the findings of scientists when they conflict with the Bible, but not willing to question the Bible itself?

Why is it that Creationists are willing to question the findings of scientists when they conflict with the Bible, but not willing to question the Bible itself? That's the double standard that shows what a scam Creationism is, especially when it cloaks itself in "scientific" language. A pig wearing makeup is still a pig.

Chris Caprette said: Please Dale, don't be so unkind to pigs. They are fine, intelligent, tasty animals not at all like creationists. (Actually, I can't say whether or not creationists also are tasty.)

As a Sunday School teacher myself, I think that her use of that time to teach about radiometric dating and mutation to be theologically horrifying to say nothing of intellectually dishonest. Even if by some off the wall chance she were telling them the truth and "presenting both sides equally" (which I am sure she is not), Sunday School is neither the time nor the place.

I totally agree with you Richard. That is just not right. You don't have to tell children about unless you are planning on making your children really confused for the rest of their lives.

Eric

teach said: As a Sunday School teacher myself, I think that her use of that time to teach about radiometric dating and mutation to be theologically horrifying to say nothing of intellectually dishonest.

"I have some trepidations about the use of the term “child abuse” here. That term has a legal meaning in almost every jurisdiction. Although this woman is horrifically lying to children, she is also merely “teaching” them culturally sanctioned religious dogma with the consent of the parents. She’s lying to children in order to brainwash them against the science education that she fears they may be exposed to later, because her particular cult denies mainstream science. "

I'm always amused to watch Christians blatantly lie. Is their "immortal soul" worth so little? It's also entertaining to see the sheer hypocrisy when they use the same science daily that supports evolution, C-14 dating, etc. Purdom is not teaching children to question or any type of "science education". She will tell them that she is correct and no questions will be tolerated.

teach said: As a Sunday School teacher myself, I think that her use of that time to teach about radiometric dating and mutation to be theologically horrifying to say nothing of intellectually dishonest. Even if by some off the wall chance she were telling them the truth and "presenting both sides equally" (which I am sure she is not), Sunday School is neither the time nor the place.

Dale Husband said: Look at this nonsense: http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/georgia-purdom/bio/ ... Dr. Purdom is a fraud and/or an idiot, and her Ph.D isn't worth spit.

FL said: Hmm. Sounds like science education, not child abuse. But no matter. Go ahead and file a lawsuit for child abuse, RBH. Betcha won't win. At all. Period. FL

Why is it that Creationists are willing to question the findings of scientists when they conflict with the Bible, but not willing to question the Bible itself?

Daniel J. Andrews said: Then you're also looking at the state removing children from parents for reasons other than physical or emotional abuse, and I doubt even the most skeptical among us wants the government involved in those kind of decisions.

Daniel J. Andrews said: I'm puzzled as to how she can have a PhD in molecular genetics and not be overwhelmed by the evidence for evolution in that field alone. Has she compartmentalized her area of study and not bothered looking at the other aspects of molecular genetics because she already knows it is all "wrong"?

Those kids are screwed.

Gingerbaker said: The term "child abuse" has certainly been bandied about a lot in reference to this issue by several of the authors of science blogs which I read regularly. And I agree with you that the term has a primary connotation as a legal term. Perhaps it should not be used unless the legal allusion is what is intended by the author. Or maybe not. I know that I and many others do feel that deliberate miseducation is abusive and I would love to see a legalistic analysis if this is a legitimate issue that could and should be prosecuted as "child abuse" by the atheist movement. The other question is whether the term itself should be used deliberately even if the consensus is that it has no legal legs. The legal issue is really complex, but fascinating, in my particularly uninformed opinion. Religion, and therefore religious education, has been given enormous Constitutional deference and an effort to constrain religious education in institutions would have enormous implications. On the other hand, 1st Amendment religious speech and exercise rights are not unlimited and have been restricted if they conflict with certain compelling state interests. These include Federal drug laws (peyote use by Native Americans) and demonstrable physical harm to minors (medical care for children of Christian Scientists). Whether the proper scientific education of children qualifies as a 'Compelling Interest' is a question which is not necessarily a loser right out of the box. The court has already "acknowledged that compulsory education was extremely important “in the generality of cases,” [http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/eilr/19/19.2/Berg.pdf]This, as best as I can make out, was a special case that specifically exempted only Amish kids from needing a proper education. Any Constitutional lawyers here?

I’m puzzled as to how she can have a PhD in molecular genetics and not be overwhelmed by the evidence for evolution in that field alone.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: I broached the special creation vs. evolution issue topic one time only, and after a little discussion I was informed that Islam instructs followers that only Imams are allowed to debate or discuss such matters.

The term “child abuse” has certainly been bandied about a lot in reference to this issue by several of the authors of science blogs which I read regularly.

raven said: The best and brightest will discover sooner or later that the adults have lied to them. And they will wonder what else the adults lied to them about.

raven said: One of my minor criticisms of fundie-ism is that they set their kids up to fail. The statistics say they are less educated, lower in socioeconomic levels, and higher in social problems such as teenage pregnancy, abortion, drug use, and any other metric you care to look at. OTOH, we need people to mow our lawns, do our laundry, and cook our burgers so I guess it all works out in the end.

Why is it that Creationists are willing to question the findings of scientists when they conflict with the Bible, but not willing to question the Bible itself? That’s the double standard that shows what a scam Creationism is, especially when it cloaks itself in “scientific” language. A pig wearing makeup is still a pig.

— Dale Husband

For me, the irony is that Purdom spent six years in the place that convinced me the Earth had to be very old. Riding my bike around the south end of Mount Vernon as a kid, I noticed obvious cliffs along flat bottomland south of the Kokosing River, and I got the sense of an ancient shoreline of a long-gone lake. There were other cliffs further to the south on what was then Lakeholm Farm and later the Nazarene campus. My idea of an ancient lake may have been a little naive, but whether the terrain was carved out over time by the Kokosing River or gouged by a glacier, just looking around made me realize it took slow natural processes over vast amounts of time to produce this particular snatch of scenery.

Later, the Nazarene college was established on Lakeholm Farm. Then the new high school and middle school were built a little further north of that. Freshwater and Purdom both went to work every day in the midst of this ancient landscape. Both were supposed to be teaching science, but couldn't they see what was around them?

Yep. I spent 12 years in Catholic parochial schools with persistent religious indoctrination.

Both were supposed to be teaching science, but couldn’t they see what was around them?

Instead of trying to put the Christ back in Christmas, it would be better to put the Christ back into Christianity, eh?

--"Haven’t you read," he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (he's quoting from Gen. 1:27) --and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (he's quoting from Gen. 2:24) --So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” --Matt 19:4-6

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. --Col. 1:16)

FL said:

Instead of trying to put the Christ back in Christmas, it would be better to put the Christ back into Christianity, eh?

Sounds somewhat reasonable. (eh, maybe.) But may I suggest something? You honestly do NOT want Christ back into Christianity either. You reject him anyway, love-mercy-forgiveness notwithstanding. Why? Because Christ is a creationist, and a supernatural one at that. Acceptance of Christ into your life as personal Ruler Lord and Savior, more than anything else, will create major friction and force a decision when it comes to evolution. (For example, you saw Jesus affirming the supernatural Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve. Directly clashes and crashes your evolutionary theory of human origins. Can't escape. So you gotta choose either Jesus or Evolution. Who's your Deity? Who's your Lord?)

--"Haven’t you read," he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (he's quoting from Gen. 1:27) --and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (he's quoting from Gen. 2:24) --So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” --Matt 19:4-6

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. --Col. 1:16)

FL

FL said:

Instead of trying to put the Christ back in Christmas, it would be better to put the Christ back into Christianity, eh?

Sounds somewhat reasonable. (eh, maybe.) But may I suggest something? You honestly do NOT want Christ back into Christianity either. You reject him anyway, love-mercy-forgiveness notwithstanding. Why? Because Christ is a creationist, and a supernatural one at that. Acceptance of Christ into your life as personal Ruler Lord and Savior, more than anything else, will create major friction and force a decision when it comes to evolution. (For example, you saw Jesus affirming the supernatural Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve. Directly clashes and crashes your evolutionary theory of human origins. Can't escape. So you gotta choose either Jesus or Evolution. Who's your Deity? Who's your Lord?)

--"Haven’t you read," he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (he's quoting from Gen. 1:27) --and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (he's quoting from Gen. 2:24) --So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” --Matt 19:4-6

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. --Col. 1:16)

FL

The Founding Mothers said: Dude, you really don't want to get into discussions about biblical interpretation, accuracy and consistency around here. Problem being that some folks here actually read it, then think about what it says. For example, what was the 'virgin' Mary's father's name?

Dude, you really don’t want to get into discussions about biblical interpretation, accuracy and consistency around here.

Purdom gives some of her “motivation” in her series on ID in with she already starts demonizing “evolutionists” within the first five minutes.

Nearly all these presentations at AiG trace their shtick back to Ken Ham’s “historical science” fallacy (I think he picked this up from Henry Morris), and the claim that they have an “eye witness account” of “The Beginning.”

Therefore you can’t study the past because you can’t prove that the laws of the universe were the same in the past. How they know that wasn’t last Thursday or a second ago they don’t say. Nor do they say why this same argument cannot be used against “evidences” for the stories in their holy book being absolutely true.

It’s all so tedious and boring.

FL: My interpretation is different. QED.

There can be no such thing as rigourous proof or disproof over what historical biblical characters are claimed to have said. The Gospel according to Matthew was probably written about half a century after Jesus died. You apparently can't remember questions (that have been repeatedly asked), by the time you've finished reading a question. There's a chance Matthew got confused about what was said by whom, when.

The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians probably wasn't even written by Paul, and was probably also written 50 years after Jesus died.

You probably should have paid more attention in Sunday school, in between the abuse sessions.

Stanton: Yeah - you're right. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but it's fun to watch them dance.

I'm less concerned that people actually still answer this site's Xian "turd in the punchbowl" and more concerned that, given its proven incivility and stupidity, it isn't simply banned to the BW: why force decent people to restrain themsellves from feeding this most odiously stupid and dishonest of Xian trolls?

if this is the same woman, which i think it is, i remember her being in a creotard museum video, actually saying that she has taught her daughter that she's a "dirty little sinner". The smirk on her face when she said that - it made me sick. Unfortunately you don't get your kids taken away for that. This woman is proof there is no god, what god would create such garbage.

flyonthewall said: if this is the same woman, which i think it is, i remember her being in a creotard museum video, actually saying that she has taught her daughter that she's a "dirty little sinner". The smirk on her face when she said that - it made me sick. Unfortunately you don't get your kids taken away for that. This woman is proof there is no god, what god would create such garbage.

flyonthewall said: if this is the same woman, which i think it is, i remember her being in a creotard museum video, actually saying that she has taught her daughter that she's a "dirty little sinner". The smirk on her face when she said that - it made me sick. Unfortunately you don't get your kids taken away for that. This woman is proof there is no god, what god would create such garbage.

DS said:

Bob said: No worries, children are used to being told lies. Santa brings you presents, the tooth fairy takes your teeth, the easter bunny does whatever the hell it does, and dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. These kids will grow up, realize they were lies, and move on with their lives.

Agreed. But I always wondered where the bunnies got the eggs.

FL said: After you successfully disprove the biblical claim of Jesus being a creationist, I can stop believing it.

Paul Burnett said: Because if Jesus never told a lie, he absolutely cannot have been a creationist.

DS said: Agreed. But I always wondered where the bunnies got the eggs.

FL said:

Instead of trying to put the Christ back in Christmas, it would be better to put the Christ back into Christianity, eh?

Sounds somewhat reasonable. (eh, maybe.) But may I suggest something? You honestly do NOT want Christ back into Christianity either. You reject him anyway, love-mercy-forgiveness notwithstanding. Why? Because Christ is a creationist, and a supernatural one at that. Acceptance of Christ into your life as personal Ruler Lord and Savior, more than anything else, will create major friction and force a decision when it comes to evolution. (For example, you saw Jesus affirming the supernatural Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve. Directly clashes and crashes your evolutionary theory of human origins. Can't escape. So you gotta choose either Jesus or Evolution. Who's your Deity? Who's your Lord?)

--"Haven’t you read," he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (he's quoting from Gen. 1:27) --and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (he's quoting from Gen. 2:24) --So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” --Matt 19:4-6

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. --Col. 1:16)

FL

FL said:

Instead of trying to put the Christ back in Christmas, it would be better to put the Christ back into Christianity, eh?

Sounds somewhat reasonable. (eh, maybe.) But may I suggest something? You honestly do NOT want Christ back into Christianity either. You reject him anyway, love-mercy-forgiveness notwithstanding. Why? Because Christ is a creationist, and a supernatural one at that. Acceptance of Christ into your life as personal Ruler Lord and Savior, more than anything else, will create major friction and force a decision when it comes to evolution. (For example, you saw Jesus affirming the supernatural Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve. Directly clashes and crashes your evolutionary theory of human origins. Can't escape. So you gotta choose either Jesus or Evolution. Who's your Deity? Who's your Lord?)

--"Haven’t you read," he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (he's quoting from Gen. 1:27) --and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (he's quoting from Gen. 2:24) --So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” --Matt 19:4-6

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. --Col. 1:16)

FL

One of the great tragedies of the Protestant Reformation, in addition to destroying forever the unity of the Christians in western Europe, was that it enshrined the Bible as the sole source of dogma among Protestants. Now, I will grant that the incredible corruption and tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages made the Reformation both necessary and inevitable, but the way it was done by most Protestants made spiritual tyranny inevitable among them as well. This was because they simply replaced the Catholic papacy and church councils with the Bible itself, or rather, how Protestant leaders read the Bible. Calling the Word of God what is actually your INTERPRETATION of words of men writing in the name of God is stretching things beyond any bounds of logic you can imagine, which is why Christians constantly emphasize faith as their standard. When you read the Bible, you are not reading the original Word of God at all, but something that was written by various authors (in many cases, unknown), copied many times, translated, printed and published in various languages and editions over thousands of years. After all this time, there is really no way we can tell what the real Word of God may be, and instead we are left with something that gives a dim view of God at best. It is like someone telling a long and complex story to a friend, who then repeats that story to another friend, and so on until eventually the story has been repeated about 30 or 40 times and finally the original storyteller hears the story again….and realizes how inaccurate his story has become, even with details added or omitted that he never intended, maybe even with different character names and a different outcome made by people who didn’t like the story as it had been told originally. Nowhere does this analogy become more apt than with the four Gospels in the New Testament, with their own contradictions and altered, added and omitted details. None of them were written by Jesus himself, and they were written decades after the events they describe, as even fundamentalists admit in their own propaganda. The conflict between Creationism and evolution in the life of creation “scientist” Kurt Wise illustrates the absurdity of Biblical dogmatism clearly. He was unable to let go of his assumption that the Bible was infallible, so he declared, despite his scientific training (even studying under Stephen Jay Gould), that the teachings of the Bible trumped any physical evidence from the universe that supported evolution. This is illogical, since the Bible itself says that God created the universe and mankind, thus one would expect what we find when we study the universe to be the tool by which we can confirm whether or not the Bible is God’s Word. And the intelligence that God supposedly gave us must also be used as a tool to determine what is true or even acceptable, or God wouldn’t have given us brains in the first place. But the Biblical dogmatist says that without the Bible, most of us would not know of God at all. That may be true, but that would not justify adhereing to absurdities or even outright lies for the sake of beleiving in God. We know that the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a boy was made up to illustrate the moral value of honesty (how ironic), but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist, since all the other historical records of his military achievements and Presidency are beyond dispute. We need to use science and reason to find out what is valid and reject what is rediculous, or we will doom ourselves. Jesus himself said that the Jews of his time erred by “teaching as doctrines (of God) the teachings of men.” And that is true whether you believe in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church traditions or the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura. Either way, you will be led into tyranny. Truth can only be found via science, never dogma of any kind. Science unifies people by showing what is true via objective study of the universe and everything in it, while religion with its baseless assertions divides people. It must be noted that my statement is just as applicable to Islam, the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran cannot be the Word of Allah, though it contains much wisdom. It also contains much evil and must be regarded critically by science and reason just as much as the Bible.

Mr. Hoppe, my best friend was raped by her grandfather when she was 8 years old. It happened several more times over the years as her parents pretended not to know what was going on. I submit that *her* experience was "child abuse of a very high order."

A teacher deliberately feeding students bad science is unfortunate and should be remedied as quickly as possible, but it is not child abuse of any order. I enjoy PT but this type of hyperbole is insulting to the millions of people who have suffered actual child abuse.

So Purdom's students learned some bad science. An unfortunate event, but the reality is that many of the children will forget what they learned, never care, or simply unlearn it when the get a proper science teacher. My friend and those like her can neither forget nor be un-raped.

Therefore, I ask that you edit your post to strip it of this type of language and be far more careful in the future when communicating your anger at creationists.

Matt G said:

DS said: Agreed. But I always wondered where the bunnies got the eggs.

Bunnies are monotremes, obviously.

Paul Burnett said:

FL said: After you successfully disprove the biblical claim of Jesus being a creationist, I can stop believing it.

FL, did Jesus ever tell a lie? Yes or no? Because if Jesus never told a lie, he absolutely cannot have been a creationist.

fasteddie said: Mr. Hoppe, my best friend was raped by her grandfather when she was 8 years old. It happened several more times over the years as her parents pretended not to know what was going on. I submit that *her* experience was "child abuse of a very high order." A teacher deliberately feeding students bad science is unfortunate and should be remedied as quickly as possible, but it is not child abuse of any order. I enjoy PT but this type of hyperbole is insulting to the millions of people who have suffered actual child abuse. So Purdom's students learned some bad science. An unfortunate event, but the reality is that many of the children will forget what they learned, never care, or simply unlearn it when the get a proper science teacher. My friend and those like her can neither forget nor be un-raped. Therefore, I ask that you edit your post to strip it of this type of language and be far more careful in the future when communicating your anger at creationists.

Wolfhound said: STFU, FL, seriously. Nobody wants to have to skip over your witless witnessing. Why do you persist? You're a ineducable moron who has no interest in science. Does Jesus give you points for pooping on our nice blog? Piss off, charlatan!

Stanton said: FL repeatedly refuses to state where in the Bible Jesus allegedly states that believing the Book of Genesis is literally, word-for-word true is more important than accepting Jesus as one's savior.

With the IBIG “kick me” troll, and the FL self-righteous troll, we are presented with some of the best examples of why everyone should avoid such religious indoctrination and its concomitant brain death.

(FM says) The Gospel according to Matthew was probably written about half a century after Jesus died.

"On balance, then, the preponderance of evidence suggests that Matthew was published before 70, but not long before." -- Introduction to the New Testament, Carson and Moo, 2nd ed, 2005.

"We must be content with dating Mark sometime in the late 50's or early 60's." (Carson and Moo, p. 182).

...New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg lists many other reasons for believing that this oral tradition was accurately transmitted by Jesus' earliest followers. First, Jesus' followers believed that He "proclaimed God's Word in a way which demanded careful retelling." Second, over ninety percent of his teachings contained "poetic elements which would have made them easy to memorize." Third, "the almost universal method of education in antiquity, and especially in Israel, was rote memorization, which enabled people accurately to recount quantities of material far greater than all of the Gospels put together." And fourth, "written notes and a kind of shorthand were often privately kept by rabbis and their disciples." Although we can't be sure that any of Jesus' disciples kept written notes of His teachings, it's at least possible that they did. Finally, we must bear in mind that the Gospels are not the product of merely one person's memories of the events of Jesus' life. Instead, the oral tradition which lies behind the Gospels is based on numerous eyewitness reports. This is extremely important, for as the authors of "Reinventing Jesus" remind us, the disciples' "recollections were not individual memories but collective ones—confirmed by other eyewitnesses and burned into their minds by the constant retelling of the story. . . . Memory in community is a deathblow to the view that the disciples simply forgot the real Jesus." (Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, pg. 33-34). Source: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223619/k.58AB/Gospel_Truth_or_Fictitious_Gossip.htm#text9

"(The) arguments against Pauline authorship are not decisive. They do not reckon sufficiently with the fact that a mind like Paul's was capable of adaptation to new situations and to the adoption of new vocabulary and new concepts where older ones do not meet the need. They also fail to give a reason for addressing the letter to the unimportant town of Colosse. Surely an imitator would have selected a city of some importance, such as Laodicea or Hierapolis. In view of the letter's claim and of the many undoubtedly Pauline features it manifests, we should accept it as an authentic Pauline writing." --Carson and Moo, p.521.

FL said: No attempt was given by FM to show from Scripture text/context that Jesus himself disbelieved the historicity and literalness of the Gen creation accounts at all. FM did not disprove the fact that Jesus was a creationist.

(FM says) The Gospel according to Matthew was probably written about half a century after Jesus died.

Matt's book is dated only about 37 years after Jesus's Resurrection. No automatic barriers there, as you'll see. No evidence that any of Jesus's words in Matt 19 were forgotten or "confused" by Matt.

"On balance, then, the preponderance of evidence suggests that Matthew was published before 70, but not long before." -- Introduction to the New Testament, Carson and Moo, 2nd ed, 2005.

Furthermore, a corroborating account of Jesus affirming the Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve occurs from another author, (Mark), in Mark chap. 10, and that book is over a decade earlier than Matthew.

"We must be content with dating Mark sometime in the late 50's or early 60's." (Carson and Moo, p. 182).

So FM, the evidence points in one direction only. You have more than one clear biblical source clearly attesting that Jesus was a creationist. You have corroboration there. You have ZERO sources anywhere claiming that Jesus (an observant Jew of ancient Israel), did NOT believe in the historicity and literalness of the Gen creation account. Zero sources claiming anything wrong with Matt's or Mark's memory. And it turns out that there's plenty of ways that Matt, Mark and others could have remembered Jesus's claim accurately. Consider:

...New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg lists many other reasons for believing that this oral tradition was accurately transmitted by Jesus' earliest followers. First, Jesus' followers believed that He "proclaimed God's Word in a way which demanded careful retelling." Second, over ninety percent of his teachings contained "poetic elements which would have made them easy to memorize." Third, "the almost universal method of education in antiquity, and especially in Israel, was rote memorization, which enabled people accurately to recount quantities of material far greater than all of the Gospels put together." And fourth, "written notes and a kind of shorthand were often privately kept by rabbis and their disciples." Although we can't be sure that any of Jesus' disciples kept written notes of His teachings, it's at least possible that they did. Finally, we must bear in mind that the Gospels are not the product of merely one person's memories of the events of Jesus' life. Instead, the oral tradition which lies behind the Gospels is based on numerous eyewitness reports. This is extremely important, for as the authors of "Reinventing Jesus" remind us, the disciples' "recollections were not individual memories but collective ones—confirmed by other eyewitnesses and burned into their minds by the constant retelling of the story. . . . Memory in community is a deathblow to the view that the disciples simply forgot the real Jesus." (Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, pg. 33-34). Source: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223619/k.58AB/Gospel_Truth_or_Fictitious_Gossip.htm#text9

So, that's that. Now you know exactly, and realistically, just HOW Matt and Mark's writings could have stayed accurate through the years, on what Jesus said in affirmation of the Genesis creation account. *** FM is now refuted. Go figure. (Evolutionists are so unearthly weak and illiterate when it comes to the Bible. It's as if Darwinism done pizened their brains and half their souls to boot. Unbelievable.) The only item left is to rip up FM's claim that Paul didn't write Colossians. Let's do it now and go home:

"(The) arguments against Pauline authorship are not decisive. They do not reckon sufficiently with the fact that a mind like Paul's was capable of adaptation to new situations and to the adoption of new vocabulary and new concepts where older ones do not meet the need. They also fail to give a reason for addressing the letter to the unimportant town of Colosse. Surely an imitator would have selected a city of some importance, such as Laodicea or Hierapolis. In view of the letter's claim and of the many undoubtedly Pauline features it manifests, we should accept it as an authentic Pauline writing." --Carson and Moo, p.521.

Done, and done! That's all for me. (Why go to all this trouble, btw? Why the lengthy reply? Because there are lurkers who visit this website. That's why. I want them to see for themselves that the evolutionists here at PT are unable to hold their own when it comes to the Bible.) FL

One of the things I so despise about Christian apologists like Josh McDowell is how blind they seem to be to their own stupidity or dishonesty. Case in point, the two completely different birth narratives about Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. I will present them one after the other, but with completely different names to show how utterly different and mutually exclusive they really are. People overlook the otherwise obvious only because they see the names of Jesus, Joseph, and Mary in the stories and because they associate those names with holiness, they assume the writings must be holy and therefore true. But in fact, at least one of the Gospel writers made falsehoods and thus defiled those names. A lie told in the name of Jesus is still a lie and thus dishonors Jesus. Matthew Now the birth of Soloman took place in this way. When his mother Jessica had been betrothed to Daniel, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Daniel, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Daniel, son of David, do not fear to take Jessica as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Soloman, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ”Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us). When Daniel woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Jessica home as his wife. But he kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Solomon. After Solomon was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.” When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: ” ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.’ ” Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Jessica, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Daniel in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.” After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Daniel in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene.” Luke In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Ronald, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Dinah. The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” Dinah was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Dinah, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Bartholomew. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” “How will this be,” Dinah asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God.” “I am the Lord’s servant,” Dinah answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her. In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. So Ronald also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Dinah, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.” When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.” So they hurried off and found Dinah and Ronald, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Dinah treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told. On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Bartholomew, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Ronald and Dinah took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Bartholomewto do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Dinah, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem. When Ronald and Dinah had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. By changing the names of both narratives, I hope to show that they are indeed so different that at least one of them must have been made up. Thus any claim that there is no error or contradiction in the Bible, or that the Bible can be used as evidence for the claims of or about Jesus, is totally debunked. If the two narratives had been published as I posted them here, with the different names for the Messiah and his parents, the result would have been two factions who would have insisted that either Soloman or Bartholomew must be the Messiah and that the other was false, assuming there could only be one true Messiah. No one would have considered that both stories were true or that they could be about the same person. So why accept both stories and the Gospels containing them in the New Testament? Because both stories were equally beautiful and equally plausible (or implausible, depending on your point of view). But beauty and plausibility do not equal truth. It is more likely than not that Jesus was born in Nazereth and never had any connection to Bethlehem. The stories about his birth in Bethlehem would be necessary to establish his claim as the Messiah, since it was indeed well known that the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem. In the other two Gospels, Mark and John, the place of Jesus’ birth was not even mentioned at all. If such completely different birth narratives as the ones in Matthew and Luke were written about Napoleon or Beethoven, would anyone take them seriously or insist that both must be true? Of course not!

Mike Elzinga said:

Dale Husband said: Look at this nonsense: http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/georgia-purdom/bio/ ... Dr. Purdom is a fraud and/or an idiot, and her Ph.D isn't worth spit.

As you can see at that link she, like every ID/creationist, consciously flaunts her title repeatedly. The other young scientist wannabe at AiG, Jason Lisle, manages to work “Dr. Lisle” several times into just this presentation alone. I suspect this reflects the deep-seated insecurity they feel in the presence of real learning and research experience; but it also establishes them as the rock stars of their subculture. They use titles to impress and intimidate rubes; and no doubt they already know they aren’t impressing any real scientists.

fnxtr said:

Wolfhound said: STFU, FL, seriously. Nobody wants to have to skip over your witless witnessing. Why do you persist? You're a ineducable moron who has no interest in science. Does Jesus give you points for pooping on our nice blog? Piss off, charlatan!

Always the lady, our Wolfhound. ;-}

Oh, I forgot something. I meant to tell the sweet-as-pie-lady Wolfhound that I'll be back in future threads, taking advantage (as always) of PT's constant curiosity regarding all things religious, and there's nothing her sweet little (self) can do about it. Nevertheless, do have a good day, one and all!

FL :)

FL said: Oh, I forgot something. I meant to tell the sweet-as-pie-lady Wolfhound that I'll be back in future threads, taking advantage (as always) of PT's constant curiosity regarding all things religious, and there's nothing her sweet little (self) can do about it. Nevertheless, do have a good day, one and all! FL :)

Stanton said:

FL said: Oh, I forgot something. I meant to tell the sweet-as-pie-lady Wolfhound that I'll be back in future threads, taking advantage (as always) of PT's constant curiosity regarding all things religious, and there's nothing her sweet little (self) can do about it. Nevertheless, do have a good day, one and all! FL :)

In other words, you're going to come back later to continue spewing your sectarian bigotry and anti-science nonsense, while continuing to dodge our requests to show us exactly where Jesus said that all Christians had to be Young Earth Creationists under pain of eternal damnation. No doubt you're also going to continue to refuse to explain exact was in your legendary "three-plank theory" that demonstrated how Intelligent Design wasn't religious, too.

Eventually these children will grow up and realize the truth and then are going to be oissed at all the Purdoms and The Ken Hams that lied to them and will strike back

I really appreciate that folks like FL retain their handles. It makes it convenient for the mental "skip the boring ad to next entry" mode. Thanks to practice, my skip mode is working better and better all the time.

FL said: Oh, I forgot something. I meant to tell the sweet-as-pie-lady Wolfhound that I'll be back in future threads, taking advantage (as always) of PT's constant curiosity regarding all things religious, and there's nothing her sweet little (self) can do about it. Nevertheless, do have a good day, one and all! FL :)

FL said:

Dude, you really don’t want to get into discussions about biblical interpretation, accuracy and consistency around here.

Maybe not. But in the meantime, would you take a few moments to disprove what I said about Jesus being a creationist? FL :)

Wolfhound said: Floyd actually provides a valuable service by illustrating, in technicolor tardosity, the true face of the religiously deluded, anti-science crowd. Tard stuffed pinatas are lotsa' fun and we have us some mighty large whacking sticks here. Carry on, wingnut, carry on!

FL - I know I shouldn't, but here's a little something to add to your reading list. Five bible stories that didn't make the final cut. Think of it as an extended edition. Even more kick-ass for your wafer.

Sconnor said:

FL said:

Dude, you really don’t want to get into discussions about biblical interpretation, accuracy and consistency around here.

Maybe not. But in the meantime, would you take a few moments to disprove what I said about Jesus being a creationist? FL :)

You first. Please provide objective evidence that your unsubstantiated claims about Jesus have ANY reference in reality. How do you know the bible is the one and only true word of god, as opposed to a collection of Jewish fairy tales, written by superstitious, fallible men, who used -- the supposed voice of god (as their own) -- to lend it a bogus sense of credibility and an illusion of authority and how do you know that Jesus, was the true, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, oral stories, eventually, written over time -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths? I await your non-objective reasonings, scramble-brained logic and inane mental gymnastics.

Hey FL, I'm sure you can help me with this theological problem I'm having.

See, I understand that I must take the Bible as literal truth, especially anything dealing with the creation of the world, life, etc. But from a literal perspective, the passage you quoted from Col. 1:16 is certainly puzzling: "For in him all things were created..."

Since I must take that literally, then the entire universe was created in (i.e.inside or within) God. So the universe is physically inside of God? Isn't that what it says, literally?

I do note that it's past tense, though, so perhaps somehow God expelled the universe after he created it inside himself. (We probably don't want to think about how one excretes things from inside one's body.)

So the universe was either once actually within God's body, or it still is. If it still is, then is God synonymous with the universe? Or is he some kind of megaverse, with our universe inside, perhaps along with others?

I am deeply troubled by these questions, FL, so I'd appreciate a response. And I hope it's not something about that being old-fashioned language, and it really means "by God," not "in God," which some other translation would "correct." That is the translation and language that you supplied, so surely that is what is to be considered literal.

"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

–Col. 1:16"

...and you now, since this is Jesus talking here, we'd better take it very seriously and literally. The more I study it, the more I note Jesus' careful choice of words: created in him, through him, and for him--but never BY him!

So the creation was done INSIDE god, FOR his benefit, by reaching THROUGH him--but not BY him! So it was done by someone else! An Ubergod perhaps?

Thank you, Jesus, for revealing THROUGH FL, the truth of creation!

MVNU doesn't give tenure, they only give extended contracts of some sort.

See, a metaAngel of the metaGod appeared unto God and told him that he would conceive and bear a universe...

Just Bob said: "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. –Col. 1:16" ...and you now, since this is Jesus talking here, we'd better take it very seriously and literally. The more I study it, the more I note Jesus' careful choice of words: created in him, through him, and for him--but never BY him! So the creation was done INSIDE god, FOR his benefit, by reaching THROUGH him--but not BY him! So it was done by someone else! An Ubergod perhaps?

I am curious as to exactly what expertise a molecular biologist possesses concerning radiometric dating technology. My own limited graduate school education in radiometric dating techniques left me knowing that my limited knowledge of the field would require consultation with experts when or if I needed to use radiometry in my research. I have no idea if the background of Ms Purdorn includes education in radiometrics but I suspect, from the published statement, that she is also among those of us who require strong expert consultation about the topic.

How to get rid of FL: Get him to refer to, or better yet quote from, the Bible, then REALLY take it literally. Assume it means EXACTLY what it says in plain language (as above). Then see if he defends a truly literal reading, or if he runs away. Like this:

"whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. –Col. 1:16”

All powers, rulers, and authorities created "through" and "for" God? Wouldn't that mean that God created all the rulers and authorities of the world (or they were created for him, by that Ubergod)? Then any opposition to or rebellion against any worldly ruler (created by God--Jesus says so) would be a sin! Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler were "created through him and for him." Heck, even voting against Barack Obama is a sin. Jesus says so!

Marty Erwin said: I am curious as to exactly what expertise a molecular biologist possesses concerning radiometric dating technology. My own limited graduate school education in radiometric dating techniques left me knowing that my limited knowledge of the field would require consultation with experts when or if I needed to use radiometry in my research. I have no idea if the background of Ms Purdorn includes education in radiometrics but I suspect, from the published statement, that she is also among those of us who require strong expert consultation about the topic.

My name is Talon. I am 8 years old and love the Lord and dinosaurs. I really like and appreciate your ministry. Currently, I am writing a book about evidence of a Creator and the dinosaurs He created. Where can I get pictures of dinosaurs for my book? Thank you in advance for your time and response, Talon, Founder and Owner.

Just Bob said: How to get rid of FL: Get him to refer to, or better yet quote from, the Bible, then REALLY take it literally. Assume it means EXACTLY what it says in plain language (as above). Then see if he defends a truly literal reading, or if he runs away. Like this: "whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. –Col. 1:16” All powers, rulers, and authorities created "through" and "for" God? Wouldn't that mean that God created all the rulers and authorities of the world (or they were created for him, by that Ubergod)? Then any opposition to or rebellion against any worldly ruler (created by God--Jesus says so) would be a sin! Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler were "created through him and for him." Heck, even voting against Barack Obama is a sin. Jesus says so!

Peter Henderson said: This kid's really screwed: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/01/23/recent-comments/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

My name is Talon. I am 8 years old and love the Lord and dinosaurs. I really like and appreciate your ministry. Currently, I am writing a book about evidence of a Creator and the dinosaurs He created. Where can I get pictures of dinosaurs for my book? Thank you in advance for your time and response, Talon, Founder and Owner.

Mike Elzinga said:

Peter Henderson said: This kid's really screwed: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/01/23/recent-comments/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

My name is Talon. I am 8 years old and love the Lord and dinosaurs. I really like and appreciate your ministry. Currently, I am writing a book about evidence of a Creator and the dinosaurs He created. Where can I get pictures of dinosaurs for my book? Thank you in advance for your time and response, Talon, Founder and Owner.

The more one explores AiG (or ICR of the DI), the sicker and crueler it gets.

Sconnor said: How do you know the bible is the one and only true word of god, as opposed to a collection of Jewish fairy tales, written by superstitious, fallible men, who used -- the supposed voice of god (as their own) -- to lend it a bogus sense of credibility and an illusion of authority and how do you know that Jesus, was the true, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, oral stories, eventually, written over time -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths?

FL said: Matt's book is dated only about 37 years after Jesus's Resurrection. No automatic barriers there, as you'll see. No evidence that any of Jesus's words in Matt 19 were forgotten or "confused" by Matt.

You have ZERO sources anywhere claiming that Jesus (an observant Jew of ancient Israel), did NOT believe in the historicity and literalness of the Gen creation account.

Scott F said:

Sconnor said: How do you know the bible is the one and only true word of god, as opposed to a collection of Jewish fairy tales, written by superstitious, fallible men, who used -- the supposed voice of god (as their own) -- to lend it a bogus sense of credibility and an illusion of authority and how do you know that Jesus, was the true, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, oral stories, eventually, written over time -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths?

The Teaching Company has an excellent series of lectures by Professor Bart D. Ehrman. In particular, I highly recommend the ones about the bible and the early Christian church. If I recall the lectures correctly, in the past, religion was all about authority. Authority was derived from a venerated age, because everyone knew that age and wisdom went together. A religion gained authority and hence respect if it could be shown to be an "old" religion. According to Dr. Ehrman, it was fairly common in the day for leaders of a religion to "discover" "ancient" texts or letters, showing that their religion had legs, even if they had to make up those letters from whole cloth (or parchment). That's the primary reason the Bible contains the Old Testament. To gain respect and authority, the new religion of Christ needed to show it was "old", and the Jewish religion was known to be one of the oldest. Hence, the early Christians needed to show that, in fact, many of the ancient Jewish prophecies were really predicting Christ: hence, Christ was of the house of David (born in Bethlehem) (as prophesied), yet was also from the town of Nazareth (also as prophesied). The more links the new Christians could make to the old Jewish traditions, the better. I don't know how accurate Dr. Ehrman's analyses are, but his arguments are quite compelling, and he is a very engaging speaker. It's a very rewarding way to spend your commute.

(IMO your whole emphasis on us needing to believe creationism to be saved is essentially gnostic; it makes some knowledge a prerequisite for salvation.)

...then it is possible to have beliefs that disagree with Jesus’ and not go to hell, right?

"More cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution...than to anything else." --Martin Ling, (Studies in Comparative Religion, Winter 1970), quoted by religion scholar Dr. Huston Smith in "Evolution and Evolutionism" (Christian Century July 7-14, 1982).

eric said: Do we go to hell if our beliefs about Tiberius disagree with his?

Another word (from Witherington and Wallace) concerning Bart Ehrman:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

FL

When one reads only a single book over and over, and further when one selects only those writers who insist that one interpret that book in exactly the same way, how does one conclude that one’s religion is the one true religion?

Out of the thousands of religions that have the other strict rules of interpretation, out of the thousands of mutually suspicious religions that disagree – often violently to the point of killing each other – which of these sets of strict rules of interpretation are the correct rules?

Is it the one that claims that clicking one’s heels together three times gets one back to Kansas?

Is it the one that remains steadfastly and arrogantly ignorant of all secular knowledge in order to accuse outsiders of being infidels and unbelievers and, further, projects one’s own inner evil onto strangers?

I am "ok" with Georgia Purdom's from of preaching, I know I am being selfish, but she's not using my "dime" not infringing on my kids' "time" and if that is the religion that the parents want to indoctrinate their kids into - really none of my business. Is it a dis-service to those kids? arguments could be made, but I am glad that the government does NOT have the power to interfere. Someone noted above that political leanings (in congress) change - and I don't want the government interfering on my kids' religious education (or lack thereof) - this is the price we pay

p.s. FL is an idiot

typo - that should be form of preaching...

JASONMITCHELL said: this is the price we pay

mrg said:

JASONMITCHELL said: this is the price we pay

I have to, reluctantly, agree. We have to accept that in a society that respects the rights of individuals and parents that such respect includes the right to be bozos and to teach bozo ideas to their kids. The only satisfaction I can get out of this is that I know some fair proportion of those kids, if not all of them, will grow up to say to each other: "You remember Mrs. Purdom? Boy howdy, she was a nut, wasn't she?"

FL said: Finally, evolution is simply NOT compatible with Christianity. At least not if rationality is important to you at all. http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/contra_mundum/2010-05-22/two_religions_part_two FL

JASONMITCHELL said: p.s. FL is an idiot

And he failed to defend his "literally true" bible when the quote he provided said the world was created IN, THROUGH, and FOR God--but not by him.

And he wants to continue hating Barack Obama rather than taking Jesus' words literally that all leaders are created through and for God.

And he failed to defend his “literally true” bible when the quote he provided said the world was created IN, THROUGH, and FOR God–but not by him.

...how does one conclude that one’s religion is the one true religion?

So all I’m saying here is that there’s a way to rationally and substantially answer the question you asked, if you ever want to go there. Things aren’t nearly as subjective and answerless as you pretend ‘em to be.

How come you continue to refuse to show us the exact passage in the Bible where Jesus says it's a sin to assume Evolution occurs while accepting Him as one's Savior?

Are you afraid that we'll find out that you're a liar?

FL said: Well, why not try "reason"? After all, humans were created to be rational people. And let's try "observation" too, in order to provide the fuel for that reasoning ability. Reason is not a sin in the Bible. "Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord..." --Isa. 1:18. Observation is not a dirty word in the Bible. "Come and see what the Lord has done. See what amazing things he has done on earth." --Ps. 46:8. So what do we do? We can rationally, systematically answer your question by, asking you and I exactly what religious or worldview beliefs we believe to be true, and then start rationally comparing-contrasting our responses, (including "rules of interpretation" and other topics), with the goal of seeing whether yours or mine makes more sense, is more rational, adheres closer to available evidence when possible. ***

But you, I've notice that you draw back if asked to state exactly what you believe and don't believe, to state exactly where your worldview is and where it's coming from. It's as if you're scared to put all your belief cards on the table, lest they receive a critical rational analysis and substantial weakspots-blankspots vis-a-vis Christianity get exposed. (You're not the only one of course.)

FL said: So all I'm saying here is that there's a way to rationally and substantially answer the question you asked, if you ever want to go there. Things aren't nearly as subjective and answerless as you pretend 'em to be. FL

FL said:

...how does one conclude that one’s religion is the one true religion?

Well, why not try "reason"? After all, humans were created to be rational people. And let's try "observation" too, in order to provide the fuel for that reasoning ability.

This FL fellow certainly deserves the petty, lying, obvious, and ugly fraud that is his particular, and absurdly twisted version of the general class of disease called "religion".

Likely enough, those "Romans" who imprisoned him likely chained him to the wall right-side up only yesterday.

Why not just ban him, as he both deserves and desires.

Are you arguing here that there is “one true religion” in principle, or that there is NOT, in principle? And why do you think so?

"No one else can save us. Indeed, we can be saved only by the power of the one named Jesus and not by any other person." --Acts 4:12, GWT

FL said: Hmm. Sounds like science education, not child abuse.FL

Why not just ban him, as he both deserves and desires.

Done, and done! That's all for me. (Why go to all this trouble, btw? Why the lengthy reply? Because there are lurkers who visit this website. That's why. I want them to see for themselves that the evolutionists here at PT are unable to hold their own when it comes to the Bible.) FL

FL said: Oh, I forgot something. I meant to tell the sweet-as-pie-lady Wolfhound that I'll be back in future threads, taking advantage (as always) of PT's constant curiosity regarding all things religious, and there's nothing her sweet little (self) can do about it. Nevertheless, do have a good day, one and all! FL :)

...the incomparable Lord Jesus Christ, who loves everybody and seeks a personal relationship with them...

Ew. There's FL all over the thread. Someone get a Kleenex.

heddle said: Just Bob,

And he failed to defend his “literally true” bible when the quote he provided said the world was created IN, THROUGH, and FOR God–but not by him.

I agree with very little FL has to say, but this is just dumb. Even the most die-hard literalists acknowledge that there are figures of speech used in the bible. "I am in the vine" does not imply Jesus was sprouting grapes. And you seem to think you are being clever?---amazing!

FL said:

Are you arguing here that there is “one true religion” in principle, or that there is NOT, in principle? And why do you think so?

Yes, I'm saying directly that there is ONE true religion, and that all the others--Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, Agnosticism, Apatheism, Deism, Hinduism, Zen, etc--are false. Period. The name of the one true religion? His name (for it's actually a Person we're talking about) is Jesus Christ.

"No one else can save us. Indeed, we can be saved only by the power of the one named Jesus and not by any other person." --Acts 4:12, GWT

Only one Person, in the entire history of planet Earth, died on the Cross and took your sin and mine on himself. That Person, is the "only true religion." But how to rationally establish that to a skeptic? Well, a person might start with something simple: is theism or atheism the more rational choice? That's not too difficult, and most people correctly choose theism anyway. Atheism is just a rational disaster anyway, duh. From there, ask some more questions, narrow things down some more, do some more comparing, contrasting, and evaluating. Buddhism says, for example, that human desire is the core problem, while Christianity says that SIN is humanity's core problem. Which claim makes more sense in light of today's media headlines such as the recent bloodbath at Tucson? That's just an example (not trying to answer such questions here and now). Not saying it's easy. Not saying it's quickie. It's not, no it's not. But we simply ask questions, be willing to put all out belief cards on the table for rational examination. and seek to narrow things down a piece at a time till we get to what's true and what's false. IOW, we stop pretending that questions like "what's the one true religion" are answerless, and get down with a sincere rational investigation to seek an answer. Vote the failures off the island and whittle the choices down. If we do that process, the incomparable Lord Jesus Christ, who loves everybody and seeks a personal relationship with them, will be the last Person standing when you're done.

Dr. Purdom has posted a reply to this thread over at AiG. Near the end, she states...

"So I am a horrific liar, fraud, bigot, member of a cult, and professional con artist."

Yes, Dr. Purdom, you ARE all of these things to some degree at least. Outside of the accusation of child abuse (which I think is overstated -- you are abusing your position as a Sunday School teacher, though) and a few other overstated things, you are a liar, bigot, member of a cult, and a professional con artist.

1) A liar. You present material as disproving evolution, knowing that you are not accurately representing the views of others. You clam that you reject evolution on the basis of scientific evidence, when in fact your organization EXPLICITLY states in writing that that it rejects all evidence for evolution for no other reason than a conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible, regardless of the data (see #5, below).

2) You are a fraud. You are using your credentials as a molecular biologist who studied the genetic regulation of bone remodeling to establish yourself as an authority on evolutionary biology, for which you have no training. This is disingenuous.

3) Bigot. Your blog posts are riddled with anti-homosexual propaganda. You claim, in defending Freshwater, that there is no conclusive proof that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, thereby justifying your assertion that it is a sin, with all the attendant baggage that the behavior is a matter of free will. Really? I suppose that you believe this, but your denial of the scientific literature is most easily explained as based in bigotry. There is a large body of literature out there showing strong evidence of a genetic AND biological component to the behavior. Your assertion is disingenuous (see #1).

4)Member of a cult. Sorry, but much as you claim that Christianity is nothing more than "Truth", you are arguably a member of a cult, even though this term is difficult to clearly define. But let's see here....you follow Ken Hamm, a "charismatic" leader who is outside of "mainstream" Christianity, as represented by Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran etc etc etc denominations. Your version of Christianity is historically new, and your obsession with a strict literal interpretation of the Bible coupled with an obsession about trying to prove that Science is wrong when it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible stands out as distinctively odd by comparison to most Christian theology and practice. Your organization demands strict adherence to its own defined principles. Those who fall out are subjected to vilification (witness Hamm's falling out with other evangelicals and with the Australian branch).

5) Professional con artist. Yes you are. You are paid to pass yourself off as a scientist doing good science, when in fact your goal is to proselytize your brand of Christianity, and you have accepted a statement saying that, in effect, what you practice as "science" is antithetical to any modern definition of the term. Answers in Genesis's statement of faith says "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." As a prominent member of AiG, you represent yourself as agreeing with this. If not, publicly say it (c.f. #4). If you agree with this statement, and you represent yourself as a scientist who rejects evolutionary biology on the basis of science, and not your faith, then you are indeed a fraud, a liar, and I would add a hypocrite as well.

mplavcan said: Dr. Purdom has posted a reply to this thread over at AiG. Near the end, she states...

mplavcan said: Outside of the accusation of child abuse (which I think is overstated -- you are abusing your position as a Sunday School teacher, though) and a few other overstated things ... you are a liar, bigot, member of a cult, and a professional con artist.

RBH said:

mplavcan said: Dr. Purdom has posted a reply to this thread over at AiG. Near the end, she states...

Linkie, please?

mrg said:

mplavcan said: Outside of the accusation of child abuse (which I think is overstated -- you are abusing your position as a Sunday School teacher, though) and a few other overstated things ... you are a liar, bigot, member of a cult, and a professional con artist.

I do think that "child abuse" is way OTT -- to the general public it implies starving, beating, or sexually molesting kids. It's a smear job. But ... "professional con artist?" No. Professional con artists do not believe their own cons, it's asking for calamity. Just ask Kent Hovind.

Just Bob said:

heddle said: Just Bob,

And he failed to defend his “literally true” bible when the quote he provided said the world was created IN, THROUGH, and FOR God–but not by him.

I agree with very little FL has to say, but this is just dumb. Even the most die-hard literalists acknowledge that there are figures of speech used in the bible. "I am in the vine" does not imply Jesus was sprouting grapes. And you seem to think you are being clever?---amazing!

“whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. –Col. 1:16” How about it, Heddle and FL? Doesn't that pretty darn clearly say that all earthly rulers are created for (or by?) God? And isn't that consistent with Jesus' "render unto Caesar" and his refusal to lead the rebellion that many of his followers expected him to as the Messiah? Or is there some way to interpret (weasel) your way out of that obvious meaning?

mplavcan said: Point taken. How about "Professional Liar for Jesus."

mrg said:

mplavcan said: Point taken. How about "Professional Liar for Jesus."

I do try to stay out of the religion wars. I do like Lenny Flank's remark about "desperate and deluded", however.

tupelo said: This FL fellow certainly deserves the petty, lying, obvious, and ugly fraud that is his particular, and absurdly twisted version of the general class of disease called "religion". Likely enough, those "Romans" who imprisoned him likely chained him to the wall right-side up only yesterday. Why not just ban him, as he both deserves and desires.

FL said: Well, a person might start with something simple: is theism or atheism the more rational choice? That's not too difficult, and most people correctly choose theism anyway. Atheism is just a rational disaster anyway, duh.

mplavcan said: Well, in this case you can't get around it.

mrg said:

mplavcan said: Well, in this case you can't get around it.

I've never found it difficult: "I don't know anything about your religion and don't want to find out, but your science is bogus."

mplavcan said: Ignoring the fact that the attacks are all about religion does not change the fact that the attacks are all about religion.

"their science would still be bogus", rather.

Honestly, if someone told me: "I reject evolution because my religion tells me to." -- I would reply:
"Okay. Nothing I can say about it then."

However, if I am then told: "Science also refutes evolution." -- I would reply: "That is exactly the opposite of the obvious fact that it overwhelmingly affirms it."

mrg said: "their science would still be bogus", rather. Honestly, if someone told me: "I reject evolution because my religion tells me to." -- I would reply: "Okay. Nothing I can say about it then." However, if I am then told: "Science also refutes evolution." -- I would reply: "That is exactly the opposite of the obvious fact that it overwhelmingly affirms it."

FL said: But we simply ask questions, be willing to put all out belief cards on the table for rational examination. and seek to narrow things down a piece at a time till we get to what's true and what's false. IOW, we stop pretending that questions like "what's the one true religion" are answerless, and get down with a sincere rational investigation to seek an answer. Vote the failures off the island and whittle the choices down. If we do that process, the incomparable Lord Jesus Christ, who loves everybody and seeks a personal relationship with them, will be the last Person standing when you're done.

# Thirty-four percent of fourth-graders, 30 percent of eighth-graders, and 21 percent of twelfth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level. # Seventy-two percent of fourth-graders, 63 percent of eighth-graders, and 60 percent of twelfth-graders performed at or above the Basic level. # One percent of fourth-graders, 2 percent of eighth-graders, and 1 percent of twelfth-graders performed at the Advanced level.

And then I see the nation’s report card on the performance of American youngsters with respect to their competence in science and weep:

Think about it: Creation, prayer, Bible, etc. have all basically been thrown out of public schools years ago. Evolution/millions of years is taught as fact in the public school system and secular (and even many Christian) universities—and has been for many years. These professors are bemoaning the poor science and math scores in U.S. schools and relating it to the Creation Museum/Ark Encounter! The illogic is incredible. The science and math scores have gone down as evolution has been taught as fact, and they blame creationists who have hardly any influence in secular education. Amazing! Actually, it is obvious that the more anti-Christian the schools and curricula have become, the more the science and math scores have decreased.

Thanks for the link RBH.

I was saddened to see she had no article on radiometric dating. If it was on par with her other stuff, it would've been a hoot.

One point for the bit about kinds being at the level of family/order. That would make all primates one kind, of course, but I'm guessing that is not what she teaches her kids in Sunday school.

Several points for this quote: "Another example of natural selection is that of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Such natural selection is commonly portrayed as evolution in action, but in this case, natural selection works in conjunction with mutation rather than designed variation"

Oh, I see. Natural selection cannot produce new species without an assist from mutation, therefore, evolution by natural selection is a myth. I can't see any evidence of this thing you call "forest" with all the goshdarn trees in the way!

Peter Henderson said: Ham is claiming this is due to the teaching of evolution in U.S public schools:

eric said: ...Great strategy though. Tell potential converts that Christianity is the smart, rational choice, even if you don't think belief through reason gets anyone into heaven. Hey, your decetptino may eventually lead to true faith, and in the meantime, a person who believes for the wrong reasons at least fills the collection plate. Machieavelli would be so proud.

DS said Just ask yourself, if the fundamentalists get their way, do you really think that science scores will increase?

heddle said: Just Bob,

And he failed to defend his “literally true” bible when the quote he provided said the world was created IN, THROUGH, and FOR God–but not by him.

I agree with very little FL has to say, but this is just dumb. Even the most die-hard literalists acknowledge that there are figures of speech used in the bible. "I am in the vine" does not imply Jesus was sprouting grapes. And you seem to think you are being clever?---amazing!

The Founding Mothers said: I don't think we should ban FL. Nothing s/he says is even remotely challenging to deal with (apart from my incomprehension that someone who can apparently type can also hold such an untenable position. Maybe that says more for speech recognition software though). It's better for the discussion to remain open, even if some parts need to be moved to the bathroom wall.

Mike Elzinga said: ...a grotesque little toll who seeks only psychological domination of the emotionally fragile and immature.

The Founding Mothers said: Sounds just like a sunday school teacher we all know!

Mike Elzinga said: Then it becomes obvious that they not only have fooled themselves, but they have convinced themselves that nobody can catch them.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Then it becomes obvious that they not only have fooled themselves, but they have convinced themselves that nobody can catch them.

This reminds of the HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY and its comments on the many uses of towels: "You can wrap it around your head to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal - which is such a mind bogglingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you."

Richard,

You realize, of course, that what all this means is that AiG is WATCHING Panda's Thumb?

They are PAYING ATTENTION to the discussion at Panda's Thumb!

Amazing, is it not?

We know the trolls, like IBIG and Kris, read AiG and CMI and CRS and ICR, but I don't think they work for any of these organizations.

Now, we have evidence that these groups watch PT.

They must be shaking in their boots.

John Vanko said: ... Now, we have evidence that these groups watch PT. They must be shaking in their boots.

Right. Teaching science in science class is the reason why students perform so poorly on science tests. Maybe the reason is because they are being brainwashed to mistrust science in Sunday schools. Maybe it is because they are being told that blind acceptance of myths is more important than science. Maybe it is because all of the pseudoscience mumbo jumbo that Ham is attempting to perpetrate.

Flint,

I agree. My point was that Ham is making an unwarranted assumption, that correlation equals causality. I was just pointing out that, if you really want to play that game, you can blame low scores on anything. It would certainly make more sense to assume that they were caused by anti science activity than by the teaching of real science.

Oh well, what can you expect from a guy who uses "were you there?" as an argument about something he wasn't there for?

Flint said: ... and probably more I can't think of offhand.

I think the political exploitation of the culture wars started in earnest back in the 1980s or early 90s. Politics has become steadily nastier and much more ideological.

Oh well, what can you expect from a guy who uses “were you there?” as an argument about something he wasn’t there for?

Flint said: Well, I suspect you are older than I am, but let me suggest that the 1980s or early 90s is when YOU started noticing this. I've seen it since the 1950s, and I'm sure it predated that. As someone insightfully observed, in politics even the President's DOG is political (recall LBJ yanking on his dog's ears). ...

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: Well, I suspect you are older than I am, but let me suggest that the 1980s or early 90s is when YOU started noticing this. I've seen it since the 1950s, and I'm sure it predated that. As someone insightfully observed, in politics even the President's DOG is political (recall LBJ yanking on his dog's ears). ...

How could I have forgotten Roosevelt versus Dewey, ...

Flint said: I think Ham is sincere in his beliefs. I also think he learns which logical canards work on his target audience by trial and error. ...

I tend to be more cynical of most of these fundamentalist charlatans.

Flint said: In general, I've observed that devout belief isn't ruled out just because someone is highly skilled as an engineer, entrepreneur, physician, etc. ad nauseum. I wonder if there is a single personality type or profession impossible to possess or excel at due to sincere religious faith.

That's a good point about creationists claiming that science supports their beliefs. People often frame creationism as a "science verses religion" issue, but I rarely see creationists themselves framing it that way. Indeed I've read a creationist biology textbook that includes the statement that "true science" can never contradict the Bible.

Well, I suspect you are older than I am, but let me suggest that the 1980s or early 90s is when YOU started noticing this. I’ve seen it since the 1950s, and I’m sure it predated that.

Richard said: People often frame creationism as a "science verses religion" issue, but I rarely see creationists themselves framing it that way.

Flint said:

Right. Teaching science in science class is the reason why students perform so poorly on science tests. Maybe the reason is because they are being brainwashed to mistrust science in Sunday schools. Maybe it is because they are being told that blind acceptance of myths is more important than science. Maybe it is because all of the pseudoscience mumbo jumbo that Ham is attempting to perpetrate.

My own biased, totally unsupported opinion is that the decline in test scores in the US relative to some internationally-applied standards has almost nothing to do with religion. And Ham is quite correct that back when every school day was kicked off with Christian prayer recitations and teaching evolution was illegal, the US in fact scored relatively much better. Those seeking the causes of the decline really need to look elsewhere. There's no shortage of potential contributors. I've seen the lion's share of blame laid on everthing from urbanization to unionization of teachers to educational-fad-of-the-day (things like class size, emphasis on rote learning, "new math", what have you) to manipulation of the standards to a general social (and therefore parental) loss of faith in the efficacy of public education to socioeconomic things like single parents to "no child left behind" emphasis on the slow learners while the more capable children are neglected, to a wage scale that fails to attract better teachers ("those who can, do, those who can't, teach"), and probably more I can't think of offhand. How many of us older folks here remember school prayers? I certainly do. I also recall that at the time, I'd been raised in an areligious family, had never been to any church or Sunday school, and had no clue what the prayer was talking about. Turns out that didn't matter anyway. For most, I suspect it still doesn't.

However, there are certain sectarian beliefs that preclude competence in secular professions such as science.

heddle said: Mike Elzinga,

However, there are certain sectarian beliefs that preclude competence in secular professions such as science.

Nonsense. Science, like anything else, is a skill. One that requires intellect, training, and agreement on the rules (the scientific method.) What it does not require is that you actually believe it. It is agnostic about your beliefs, even your beliefs about science. You could solve outstanding problems in String Theory while all the time believing String Theory was a bunch of crap. Neither the data, nor the equipment, nor the equations ask for or give a rat's ass about your beliefs. Science is a learned skill built upon inate talent. Like any other profession. It is not a sacred calling. You are 100% wrong on this.

Mike wrote:

"Some of these may become engineers or some other type of applied science professional; and they might be pretty god at what they do. But in these cases – and they say this – their working concepts don’t conflict with their religion. They just don’t think about the science behind what they do."

That goes way beyond Freudian slip, that includes the bra and panties!

heddle said: Science is a learned skill built upon inate talent. Like any other profession. It is not a sacred calling.

DS said:

heddle said: Mike Elzinga,

However, there are certain sectarian beliefs that preclude competence in secular professions such as science.

Nonsense. Science, like anything else, is a skill. One that requires intellect, training, and agreement on the rules (the scientific method.) What it does not require is that you actually believe it. It is agnostic about your beliefs, even your beliefs about science. You could solve outstanding problems in String Theory while all the time believing String Theory was a bunch of crap. Neither the data, nor the equipment, nor the equations ask for or give a rat's ass about your beliefs. Science is a learned skill built upon inate talent. Like any other profession. It is not a sacred calling. You are 100% wrong on this.

The problem comes in when the findings of science contradict those preconceptions. Then you probably are forced to choose between science and your preconceptions. Or maybe you could rationalize and compartmentalize enough to live with the contradiction. What you should not do in that case is to just assume that your preconceptions were right all along, that there is something wrong with science and refuse to be convinced by the evidence. And of course, it would be even worse to try to force or fool others into doing so as well.

DS said: Mike wrote: "Some of these may become engineers or some other type of applied science professional; and they might be pretty god at what they do. But in these cases – and they say this – their working concepts don’t conflict with their religion. They just don’t think about the science behind what they do." That goes way beyond Freudian slip, that includes the bra and panties!

In that respect Mike is quite correct Flint.

I think the political exploitation of the culture wars started in earnest back in the 1980s or early 90s. Politics has become steadily nastier and much more ideological.

Compartmentalization is psycho-babble that explains nothing and everything. In my String Theory example, the anti-StringTheory theorist doesn't have to compartmentalize--whatever the hell that means. He can just say to himself--This is all crap--but I can do it better than than the people who actually believe it! Ain't that a hoot?

It is not compartmentalization--it's just different motives. And motives don't matter. Only respecting the methodology matters.

Another case is the loathsome Jonathan Wells. If he had actually done when he claimed he was going to do for his "father," then in principle he could have gone into a lab with the motivation of destroying the theory of evolution. And in the process he could have performed perfectly acceptable evolutionary research.

Of course we know that in his case is was all bluster; he didn't even try.

heddle said: Of course we know that in his case is was all bluster; he didn't even try.

heddle said: He can just say to himself--This is all crap--but I can do it better than than the people who actually believe it! Ain't that a hoot?

Mike Elzinga said:

heddle said: Of course we know that in his case is was all bluster; he didn't even try.

And why do you think he didn't even try?

Compartmentalization is psycho-babble that explains nothing and everything.

heddle said: It is not compartmentalization--it's just different motives. And motives don't matter. Only respecting the methodology matters.

heddle said:

Mike Elzinga said:

heddle said: Of course we know that in his case is was all bluster; he didn't even try.

And why do you think he didn't even try?

Am I wrong? Did he actually get into the lab and conduct legitimate experiments because he believed the results would discredit evolution? If so I apologize for writing that he didn't even try.

But Mike was talking about cultural battles generally. And I see no way to keep these out of politics, or to keep those most devoted to their cultural views from increased desperation if they see themselves losing.

But Mike was talking about cultural battles generally. And I see no way to keep these out of politics, or to keep those most devoted to their cultural views from increased desperation if they see themselves losing.

"Moreover, the idea of special creation does not explain why the SMC has had so many successes."

"However, difficulties occur when considering the Milky Way Galaxy. One can simplistically imagine that billions of years may have passed in the “distant universe,” while only thousands of years have passed in the “nearby universe,” but where is the transition between the “distant universe” and the “nearby universe”? ... This is not something that has yet been addressed within creationist models of time dilation."

"The possibility that the universe might be genuinely old is not one that has received much consideration from within the creationist community."

"Indeed, beyond the distant starlight issue, very little has been done to explain the many patterns and trends that have been identified through observations of the universe beyond our solar system. In contrast, while it does not supply an ultimate explanation, the SMC does apparently provide plausible proximate explanations for all of the phenomena discussed above."

Actually, I find the inroads creationism is making in different places to be more interesting than the general observation that politics has always been political.

You may have noticed that over the last couple of years in the US, the Republican party has voted unanimously against anything Obama or the Democrats want, EVEN WHEN voting no is directly against their immediate self-interests!

This may not be a culture war directly, but I sense a strong feeling that Obama is seen as one of "them", and his administration must be discredited no matter how much damage is done to anyone in the process. And to me, this is kind of scary, because it means the Republicans no longer represent the Loyal Opposition, interested in doing what's best for their nation but disagreeing with the Democrats as to what that best might be. The Republicans have NOT been the least interested in what's best for their country, dedicated instead to poisoning the water EVERYONE must drink, even themselves.

The politics you describe sounds similar. Nobody is voting on the merits of anything, everyone is voting to damage the opposition and what the opposition might propose is irrelevant.

If she tells her Sunday school children that what they learn in public school about biological science is wrong, then what does she tell them about the origins of life, especially human beings? Does she tell them that all people are descended from just one man and one woman (i.e. Adam and Eve)? This would mean that she would have to tell third graders that all people are also descended from Adam and Eve's incestuous children! By the way, third graders seldom learn about evolution, etc. even in public school. That usually comes later in high school. Or least not until seventh or eighth grade.

John Vanko said: AiG may pull their post after they read it more carefully.

Barb Rainey said: By the way, third graders seldom learn about evolution, etc. even in public school. That usually comes later in high school. Or least not until seventh or eighth grade.

In a poll by the Cleveland Plain Dealer (somewhere around 2005), Ohioans were asked the question: “Which of the following is the principal source of your views on the development of life on Earth?” Only 15% of respondents answered “science classes in school.” Another 10% referred to the work of scientists. Five percent pointed to the news media. And fully 54% said this knowledge “came from religious teaching.”

Here is yet another challenge - to get churches to speak truth to their members. I've taught Sunday School classes for 25+ years at the local Unitarian Universalist Church and have used consensus science throughout. I've also led adult education classes on the frontiers of science and research. However, we're not your typical church.

Maybe a bit scarier, this post was on the John Freshwater facebook page:
"Came across your story today, sorry it wasn't sooner. I and a science teacher and on my desk in plain sight sits a Bible. I hold a prayer meeting in my classroom every single Tuesday morning, rain or shine, test or no test, before class hours of course...wouldn't want to upset the constitutionally ignorant seperation o...f church and state folks. Having been (and what teacher who really STRIVES to get the job done hasn't) a victim of fabrication and parent outrage over the fabrication and then tried by the left wing teacher hating media I can truly say that I feel your pain. I was blessed however by having a believer as a principal and having more than half the school board also in the family of God. Be strong, we are not given a spirit of fear, be strong. My prayers go with you. D!"
I looked it up and I am not surprised to see this person teaches in Texas.

wgwII said: Maybe a bit scarier, this post was on the John Freshwater facebook page: "Came across your story today, sorry it wasn't sooner. I and a science teacher and on my desk in plain sight sits a Bible. I hold a prayer meeting in my classroom every single Tuesday morning, rain or shine, test or no test, before class hours of course...wouldn't want to upset the constitutionally ignorant seperation o...f church and state folks. Having been (and what teacher who really STRIVES to get the job done hasn't) a victim of fabrication and parent outrage over the fabrication and then tried by the left wing teacher hating media I can truly say that I feel your pain. I was blessed however by having a believer as a principal and having more than half the school board also in the family of God. Be strong, we are not given a spirit of fear, be strong. My prayers go with you. D!" I looked it up and I am not surprised to see this person teaches in Texas.

Georgia on My Mind: My word, the Marxist comrades certainly have their panties in a wad on this one. How easily they cast aside others freedom for their own sense of self importance. Why, they own all the children of the world, don’t you know?

Max said: Georgia on My Mind: My word, the Marxist comrades certainly have their panties in a wad on this one.

Max said: Georgia on My Mind: My word, the Marxist comrades certainly have their panties in a wad on this one. How easily they cast aside others freedom for their own sense of self importance. Why, they own all the children of the world, don’t you know?

Flint said: Actually, I find the inroads creationism is making in different places to be more interesting than the general observation that politics has always been political. You may have noticed that over the last couple of years in the US, the Republican party has voted unanimously against anything Obama or the Democrats want, EVEN WHEN voting no is directly against their immediate self-interests! This may not be a culture war directly, but I sense a strong feeling that Obama is seen as one of "them", and his administration must be discredited no matter how much damage is done to anyone in the process. And to me, this is kind of scary, because it means the Republicans no longer represent the Loyal Opposition, interested in doing what's best for their nation but disagreeing with the Democrats as to what that best might be. The Republicans have NOT been the least interested in what's best for their country, dedicated instead to poisoning the water EVERYONE must drink, even themselves. The politics you describe sounds similar. Nobody is voting on the merits of anything, everyone is voting to damage the opposition and what the opposition might propose is irrelevant.

The General Theory of Evolution ("Amoeba to man" evolution) does indeed have a dogma - Naturalism. This is a philosophical foundation held by faith. From this, a bias emerges to take the empirical facts and make interpretations from them using assumptions, over-extrapolations, and imagination. The "facts" of the theory are no facts...they are interpretations that are foisted upon us as fact. I, for one, am thankful that my children are not learning evolutionary theory but are learning at home from a curriculum that presupposes a supernatural God...not naturalism.

Additionally, this theory cannot account for so much of man...it cannot account for unique language capability of man over and above all animals...that allows man not only to speak of those things which are seen but of things which are not seen. It cannot account for our thrist for wisdom, beauty, purpose, meaning, truth, greatness, heroes...etc. God made us for Himself - that we would enjoy making much of Him - glorifying Him not for His sake but for ours. That is why we have these desires and the Christian view accounts quite well for these desires. It cannot account for our obvious free agency - the soulishness of man comes through in our freedom to sit down and think/contemplate/evaluate our own selves and come up with philosophies such as existentialism. We are not chemical robots but body/soul/spirit. We all know God per Romans chapter 1...you know Him...but you are supressing the truth. The rational conclusion is GOD IS (Romans 1:20) - God Bless.

Craig L said: The General Theory of Evolution ("Amoeba to man" evolution) does indeed have a dogma - Naturalism. This is a philosophical foundation held by faith. From this, a bias emerges to take the empirical facts and make interpretations from them using assumptions, over-extrapolations, and imagination. The "facts" of the theory are no facts...they are interpretations that are foisted upon us as fact. I, for one, am thankful that my children are not learning evolutionary theory but are learning at home from a curriculum that presupposes a supernatural God...not naturalism.

DS said: You do know that many scientists believe in god don't you?

Craig L said: The General Theory of Evolution ("Amoeba to man" evolution) does indeed have a dogma - Naturalism. ...

Mike Elzinga said: it goes even farther in planting the fears and hatreds that drive your sectarian subculture to sabotage the SECULAR educational curriculum that has to serve all citizens regardless of sectarian belief.

And, by the way, your sectarian education guarantees you will always miss the point and land on superficialities.

Well, she's back on her blog about this thread.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2011/01/27/what-should-we-be-teaching-in-sunday-school/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GeorgiaPurdom+%28Dr.+Georgia+Purdom%27s+Blog%29

She obviously read the thread, so she saw all of the comments. But she only responded to two.

First:

"My question to “teach” would be: why isn’t Sunday school the time and place to teach kids truths from God’s Word? I thought that was the whole point of our current Sunday school system! For many children (especially those from non-Christian homes) this may be the only time during the week that they are hearing and learning from the Bible. Sunday school is an ideal place to equip children with answers that prepare them to defend their faith. I suspect the real problem for “teach” is what I am teaching, and not when and where I am teaching it."

Well Dr. Purdom, what you are "teaching" in Sunday school is that scientists are wrong if Science disagrees with the Bible. I suppose that this is consistent with the AiG Statement of Faith ....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

In other words, you are trying to indoctrinate children into the idea that scientific facts are only determined by their consistency with your interpretation of the Bible. Those of us struggling to teach actual science, and who care about science, are dismayed that you are trying to warp science in this way. You are particularly disappointing because you pass yourself off as a scientist to try to support your assertions, using your degree in a manner that I think is unethical and disingenuous.

Second:

"In response to Mike I would say that I am teaching them that Christ is loving, merciful, and forgiving. However, why did Christ choose to be loving, merciful, and forgiving? What am I guilty of? To get the answer we have to go back to Genesis 3 and understand the history of the Fall of man. The real, historical Adam and Eve sinned, and because every person is a descendant of them, we all have a sin nature. Because of the history that happened in Genesis, we need the real, historical Christ to save us from our sins."

Amazingly enough, other Christian denominations and theologians do not need the genesis story to be literally true in order to maintain the doctrine of original sin. Your inability to understand or accept this does not change it. In fact, your view is a minority view among Christians. But then, I have seen too many times Biblical literalists such as yourself deny that anyone is Christian who does not adhere to YOUR theological interpretation.

mplavcan said: She obviously read the thread, so she saw all of the comments. But she only responded to two.

mrg said:

mplavcan said: She obviously read the thread, so she saw all of the comments. But she only responded to two.

"CONTROVERSY, n. A battle in which spittle or ink replaces the injurious cannon-ball and the inconsiderate bayonet." (Ambrose Bierce)

Just observing the exchanges of verbal fire here. I'm not complaining, mind you ... beats cannonballs.

mplavcan said: Well, she's back on her blog about this thread. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2011/01/27/what-should-we-be-teaching-in-sunday-school/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GeorgiaPurdom+%28Dr.+Georgia+Purdom%27s+Blog%29

In addition, if my students don’t believe that the Bible is accurate when it talks about biology, geology, anthropology, etc. then I can’t expect them to believe the Bible is truthful when it talks about marriage, moral purity, salvation, and the second coming of Christ.

mrg said: Just observing the exchanges of verbal fire here. I'm not complaining, mind you ... beats cannonballs.

mplavcan said: The question is how much damage words can do, compared to a cannonball. The mighty pen and all.

I also pray that many Sunday school teachers will be convicted to teach biology, geology, anthropology, etc. in their classrooms beginning with the authority of the Bible. We have great resources that can help you now, and be watching for our Answers Bible Curriculum that will be released in 2012.

Mike Elzinga said:

I also pray that many Sunday school teachers will be convicted to teach biology, geology, anthropology, etc. in their classrooms beginning with the authority of the Bible. We have great resources that can help you now, and be watching for our Answers Bible Curriculum that will be released in 2012.

This is pretty much the heart of AiG’s sectarian home schooling. So how are we supposed to conclude that creationists don’t have their sites on science in the public schools? Especially after listening to many of the videos demonizing secular society and other “science accommodating churches.” And why is it that we are accused of “picking on” or “persecuting” Purdom and AiG for their religious beliefs when their “science” is so mangled?

mrg said:

mplavcan said: The question is how much damage words can do, compared to a cannonball. The mighty pen and all.

A valid point, but then again if we replaced all the feuds on the internet with exchanges of artillery, the entire planet would have been reduced to rubble several times over.

DS said: You seem to have conflated methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. You do know that many scientists believe in god don't you? If science demands that one cannot believe in god, how is this possible? You are perfectly free to teach your children anything you want in your home or your tax free church, but don't be surprised if they are not adequately prepared for certain jobs. And no scientist or scientific theory is suppressing the 'truth" that god "is" (depending on what the meaning of "is" is). You seem to have aimed at the wrong target there.

Craig L said: Methodological naturalism is associated with empirical science...that's fine. I never saw anything supernatural take place in my Chem labs...but with regard to philosophical naturalism, this is associated with historical/origins "science" which is philosophy masquerading as science. Individuals who subscribe to the General Theory of Evolution and say that there is no God were the subject of my comment...saying that they are supressing the truth. I was not speaking of academia per se.

Craig L said: The General Theory of Evolution ("Amoeba to man" evolution) does indeed have a dogma - Naturalism. This is a philosophical foundation held by faith. From this, a bias emerges to take the empirical facts and make interpretations from them using assumptions, over-extrapolations, and imagination. The "facts" of the theory are no facts...they are interpretations that are foisted upon us as fact. I, for one, am thankful that my children are not learning evolutionary theory but are learning at home from a curriculum that presupposes a supernatural God...not naturalism.

But then, I have seen too many times Biblical literalists such as yourself deny that anyone is Christian who does not adhere to YOUR theological interpretation.

Don't worry about your kids Craig L. My own secular education has led me to a level of semi-prosperity, and I have a very generous and giving nature. This means that when I encounter your kids, after they've grown up and find themselves fit only for menial jobs in retail foodservice, I'll still tip them well.
You have no idea what a terrible disservice you're doing to your children. The world is getting far more competitive. It's like your kids are potentially winning thoroughbreds, and you're tying cinder blocks around their necks. You should be ashamed, but you're not and you won't be. I am saddened by the profundity your ignorance.

Craig L said: Methodological naturalism is associated with empirical science...that's fine. I never saw anything supernatural take place in my Chem labs...but with regard to philosophical naturalism, this is associated with historical/origins "science" which is philosophy masquerading as science. Individuals who subscribe to the General Theory of Evolution and say that there is no God were the subject of my comment...saying that they are supressing the truth. I was not speaking of academia per se.

DS said:

Craig L said: Methodological naturalism is associated with empirical science...that's fine. I never saw anything supernatural take place in my Chem labs...but with regard to philosophical naturalism, this is associated with historical/origins "science" which is philosophy masquerading as science. Individuals who subscribe to the General Theory of Evolution and say that there is no God were the subject of my comment...saying that they are supressing the truth. I was not speaking of academia per se.

Sorry bucko, evolution is science, it uses the scientific method and methodological naturalism just like any other science. You can't pick and choose which science you will accept. Either it's a good method or it's not. By the way, if by "origins" you mean abiogenesis, that's not evolution and it's still real science. Deal with it.

Robin said: On the other hand, we'd likely still have people like Craig, et al, who would insist that man could not possibly share any common ancestry with any other organism and thus we'd be back to this argument, only they'd be using different terms. (sigh)

Mike Elzinga said: So at what time in the past do the laws of physics and chemistry start behaving “unnaturally” or “supernaturally?” Last Thursday? Before the Middle Ages? And just how do you know this?

Stuart Weinstein said: To bad for the religious zealots naturalism has had unparalleled success since its inception few centuries ago. Go back to banging your head against the wall.

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Don't worry about your kids Craig L. My own secular education has led me to a level of semi-prosperity, and I have a very generous and giving nature. This means that when I encounter your kids, after they've grown up and find themselves fit only for menial jobs in retail foodservice, I'll still tip them well. You have no idea what a terrible disservice you're doing to your children. The world is getting far more competitive. It's like your kids are potentially winning thoroughbreds, and you're tying cinder blocks around their necks. You should be ashamed, but you're not and you won't be. I am saddened by the profundity your ignorance.

Craig L said: but with regard to philosophical naturalism, this is associated with historical/origins "science" which is philosophy masquerading as science.

Individuals who subscribe to the General Theory of Evolution and say that there is no God were the subject of my comment

DS said: Sorry bucko, evolution is science, it uses the scientific method and methodological naturalism just like any other science. You can't pick and choose which science you will accept. Either it's a good method or it's not. By the way, if by "origins" you mean abiogenesis, that's not evolution and it's still real science. Deal with it.

"endeavour".

O FFS, Craig.

"What good is half a wing?"

Really?

Come back when you've learned some science, and you can elevate the intellectual rigor of your argument.

Craig L said:

Mike Elzinga said: So at what time in the past do the laws of physics and chemistry start behaving “unnaturally” or “supernaturally?” Last Thursday? Before the Middle Ages? And just how do you know this?

Right when God said...when He created all things ex nihilo. Jesus did miracles as well.

Craig L said: I understand that abiogenesis is not evolution...but, when trying to predict the past from an evollutionary standpoint, you are using some scientific method along with extrapolations, imaginations, and assertions with unverifiable assumptions - all fueled by the faith-based assumption that there is no God.

Craig L said:

Mike Elzinga said: So at what time in the past do the laws of physics and chemistry start behaving “unnaturally” or “supernaturally?” Last Thursday? Before the Middle Ages? And just how do you know this?

Right when God said...when He created all things ex nihilo. Jesus did miracles as well.

Craig L said: I understand that abiogenesis is not evolution...but,

mrg said:

Craig L said: I understand that abiogenesis is not evolution...but, when trying to predict the past from an evollutionary standpoint, you are using some scientific method along with extrapolations, imaginations, and assertions with unverifiable assumptions - all fueled by the faith-based assumption that there is no God.

OK, clarification needed here. NO commonly accepted scientific theories work any differently whether Gods are postulated or not. None of them incorporate AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS in the equations. And so, whatever the merits or lack thereof of evo science, it is no more or less "guilty" in this regard than the rest of science.

phantomreader42 said: I think Craig is fully aware of this.

Craig L said:

"With regard to your moral actions...I am wondering...can you account for morality? Is it a reflex? Or would you have a choice in the matter as to whether or not you would help them out with their needs. We are on opposite poles...a feel great grief for those under the teaching of The General Theory of Evolution. I hope you understand. God Bless."

With regard to your moral actions, some of us don't need to get our morality from a book. Some of us have a more rational approach. Some of us don't trust those who blindly follow the moral edicts of an ancient text without regard for rationality. But then again, we already dispensed with your presupposition that those who are persuaded by the evidence for evolution cannot believe in god, so the whole question is barking up the wrong tree dawg.

Craig L said:

"I understand that abiogenesis is not evolution...but, when trying to predict the past from an evollutionary standpoint, you are using some scientific method along with extrapolations, imaginations, and assertions with unverifiable assumptions - all fueled by the faith-based assumption that there is no God. Natural selection is a conservative force...not a creative one. Mutations take us backwards with regard to useful information - not forward. Irreducible complexities abound...tell me, how is 1/64th of a wing helpful to the diverging population so that it is preserved to eventually give us the fully developed wing along with the other parts necessary to the design? This problem can be posed in thousands of situations. The concept of The General Theory is all you have left at that point but the evidence is greatly lacking."

Sorry, wrong again. If you aren't a scientist ( and you abviously are not), then I must assume that your assumption about "unverified assumptions" is unsubstantiated. In other words, you are in no position to judge. You just assume that anything that disagrees with your religious presuppositions must be somehow wrong. Get over yourself dude. If you don't trust science, you are living in the wrong country. If you do, then stop picking and choosing.

For the last time, science does not assume that there is no god. Why would it? How could it, if many scientists are christians and from many other faiths? Get over yourself dude. Time to join the seventeenth century.

mrg said:

phantomreader42 said: I think Craig is fully aware of this.

There's a certain blatant contradiction that pops up when someone claims that evo science is "guilty" in eliminating AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS from the equations. That is obviously true of all science. SO ... the only real choice for someone who makes an issue of that is to either admit that's not an issue, or to reject all of science. But they don't want to make that choice, though it's always obvious they have. They will grudgingly pretend that science is valid in general while having nothing good to say about it in specific.

Craig wrote (lots of ignorant stuff):

"Mutations take us backwards with regard to useful information - not forward."

Really? And how exactly would you know this? Are you a geneticist? Have you done any experiments that demonstrate this? Have you got a reference from a scientific journal that confirms this? How would a mutation know if it were going "forward" or "backward"? Why would it care? You seem to be confused here.

"Irreducible complexities abound…tell me, how is 1/64th of a wing helpful to the diverging population so that it is preserved to eventually give us the fully developed wing along with the other parts necessary to the design? This problem can be posed in thousands of situations."

Really? Well then perhaps you will show me where anyone ever claimed that evolution has to work this way? Perhaps you have no idea exactly how evolution works, so you just make up ridiculous straw man arguments to knock down.

"The concept of The General Theory is all you have left at that point but the evidence is greatly lacking."

Once again, you are just blowing smoke out your ass. You have no idea what the evidence for evolution is and you are not qualified to judge the evidence even if you were aware of it. You just reject any science you don't like for no good reason. Fine by me. But don't come around here proudly displaying your ignorance and think that anyone will be impressed. It ain't gonna work.

Hmm. A bit early in the semester to be Trolling For Grades(tm), innit?

phantomreader42 said: They tap out their rejection of the age of the earth or the very existence of dinosaurs on keys made of plastic derived from oil from millions-of-years-old dead dinosaurs!

Yes. It is a test, for creationists (who don't know any better).

Besides, can you say FOR CERTAIN that no dinosaurs became oil? Where you there?

John Vanko said: Yes. It is a test, for creationists (who don't know any better).

Besides, can you say FOR CERTAIN that no dinosaurs became oil? Where you there?

Craig L said:

Mike in Ontario, NY said: Don't worry about your kids Craig L. My own secular education has led me to a level of semi-prosperity, and I have a very generous and giving nature. This means that when I encounter your kids, after they've grown up and find themselves fit only for menial jobs in retail foodservice, I'll still tip them well. You have no idea what a terrible disservice you're doing to your children. The world is getting far more competitive. It's like your kids are potentially winning thoroughbreds, and you're tying cinder blocks around their necks. You should be ashamed, but you're not and you won't be. I am saddened by the profundity your ignorance.

We do not live for this world because it is so short in comparison with eternity...and, the mission is not to get all you can get but to serve the Lord. I am doing quite well myself though as a Quality Engineer at an Automotive Company here in the Detroit area. With regard to your moral actions...I am wondering...can you account for morality? Is it a reflex? Or would you have a choice in the matter as to whether or not you would help them out with their needs. We are on opposite poles...a feel great grief for those under the teaching of The General Theory of Evolution. I hope you understand. God Bless.

mplavcan said: Dr. Purdom has posted a reply to this thread over at AiG. Near the end, she states... "So I am a horrific liar, fraud, bigot, member of a cult, and professional con artist." Yes, Dr. Purdom, you ARE all of these things to some degree at least. ...

Shebardigan said:

phantomreader42 said: They tap out their rejection of the age of the earth or the very existence of dinosaurs on keys made of plastic derived from oil from millions-of-years-old dead dinosaurs!

That is a joke, right?

Hoppe, you are one evil dude.

Child abuse? Anyone with an 8th grade education knows what that means. But you purport to have a PhD and don't?

Prayers for you dude.

bob

Bob Valerius said: Hoppe, you are one evil dude. Child abuse? Anyone with an 8th grade education knows what that means. But you purport to have a PhD and don't? Prayers for you dude. bob

So we hear from Ken Ham himself!! (and his request for backup)
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/01/28/teaching-sunday-school-and-child-abuse/

wonderin said:

Bob Valerius said: Hoppe, you are one evil dude. Child abuse? Anyone with an 8th grade education knows what that means. But you purport to have a PhD and don't? Prayers for you dude. bob

wonderin said: So we hear from Ken Ham himself!! (and his request for backup) http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/01/28/teaching-sunday-school-and-child-abuse/

FL said: (Why go to all this trouble, btw? Why the lengthy reply? Because there are lurkers who visit this website. That's why. I want them to see for themselves that the evolutionists here at PT are unable to hold their own when it comes to the Bible.) FL

Stanton said: Oh, yes, Mr Ham, the guy who said that Steve Irwin is burning in Hell forever and ever and ever for the unforgivable sin of not worshiping Jesus Christ in the exact same way Ken Ham worships Jesus Christ.

RBH said:

Stanton said: Oh, yes, Mr Ham, the guy who said that Steve Irwin is burning in Hell forever and ever and ever for the unforgivable sin of not worshiping Jesus Christ in the exact same way Ken Ham worships Jesus Christ.

I don't think Ham worships Jesus Christ. He's a bibliolater who worships a book.

Mike Elzinga said:

RBH said:

Stanton said: Oh, yes, Mr Ham, the guy who said that Steve Irwin is burning in Hell forever and ever and ever for the unforgivable sin of not worshiping Jesus Christ in the exact same way Ken Ham worships Jesus Christ.

I don't think Ham worships Jesus Christ. He's a bibliolater who worships a book.

And given the way he projects himself into that book, one would suspect that he thinks the book is about himself.

RBH said:

Stanton said: Oh, yes, Mr Ham, the guy who said that Steve Irwin is burning in Hell forever and ever and ever for the unforgivable sin of not worshiping Jesus Christ in the exact same way Ken Ham worships Jesus Christ.

I don't think Ham worships Jesus Christ. He's a bibliolater who worships a book.

mplavcan said: Dr. Purdom has posted a reply to this thread over at AiG. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2011/01/25/teaching-sunday-school-is-child-abuse/ Near the end, she states... "So I am a horrific liar, fraud, bigot, member of a cult, and professional con artist." Yes, Dr. Purdom, you ARE all of these things to some degree at least. Outside of the accusation of child abuse (which I think is overstated -- you are abusing your position as a Sunday School teacher, though) and a few other overstated things, you are a liar, bigot, member of a cult, and a professional con artist. 1) A liar. You present material as disproving evolution, knowing that you are not accurately representing the views of others. You clam that you reject evolution on the basis of scientific evidence, when in fact your organization EXPLICITLY states in writing that that it rejects all evidence for evolution for no other reason than a conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible, regardless of the data (see #5, below). 2) You are a fraud. You are using your credentials as a molecular biologist who studied the genetic regulation of bone remodeling to establish yourself as an authority on evolutionary biology, for which you have no training. This is disingenuous. 3) Bigot. Your blog posts are riddled with anti-homosexual propaganda. You claim, in defending Freshwater, that there is no conclusive proof that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, thereby justifying your assertion that it is a sin, with all the attendant baggage that the behavior is a matter of free will. Really? I suppose that you believe this, but your denial of the scientific literature is most easily explained as based in bigotry. There is a large body of literature out there showing strong evidence of a genetic AND biological component to the behavior. Your assertion is disingenuous (see #1). 4)Member of a cult. Sorry, but much as you claim that Christianity is nothing more than "Truth", you are arguably a member of a cult, even though this term is difficult to clearly define. But let's see here....you follow Ken Hamm, a "charismatic" leader who is outside of "mainstream" Christianity, as represented by Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran etc etc etc denominations. Your version of Christianity is historically new, and your obsession with a strict literal interpretation of the Bible coupled with an obsession about trying to prove that Science is wrong when it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible stands out as distinctively odd by comparison to most Christian theology and practice. Your organization demands strict adherence to its own defined principles. Those who fall out are subjected to vilification (witness Hamm's falling out with other evangelicals and with the Australian branch). 5) Professional con artist. Yes you are. You are paid to pass yourself off as a scientist doing good science, when in fact your goal is to proselytize your brand of Christianity, and you have accepted a statement saying that, in effect, what you practice as "science" is antithetical to any modern definition of the term. Answers in Genesis's statement of faith says "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." As a prominent member of AiG, you represent yourself as agreeing with this. If not, publicly say it (c.f. #4). If you agree with this statement, and you represent yourself as a scientist who rejects evolutionary biology on the basis of science, and not your faith, then you are indeed a fraud, a liar, and I would add a hypocrite as well.

In response to Mike I would say that I am teaching them that Christ is loving, merciful, and forgiving. However, why did Christ choose to be loving, merciful, and forgiving? What am I guilty of? To get the answer we have to go back to Genesis 3 and understand the history of the Fall of man. The real, historical Adam and Eve sinned, and because every person is a descendant of them, we all have a sin nature. Because of the history that happened in Genesis, we need the real, historical Christ to save us from our sins. Christ showed His love, mercy, grace, and compassion by dying on the cross for us, taking our punishment and paying the price for our sins. He also resurrected and will one day return and set up a new heaven and earth, and those that have received Him as Lord and Savior will live with Him for eternity.

I can’t possibly expect my students to understanding the good news of the New Testament without first understanding the bad news in the Old Testament. Think about it this way: if the first three chapters of Genesis do not present true history then we don’t need the rest of the Bible, which is focused solely on the coming, life, and coming again of Jesus Christ!

Our findings published in the book Already Gone show that young people in their 20s are leaving the church because they questioned the Bible in their junior-high and high-school years and they weren’t given good answers (or no answers) to their questions and they doubted the truthfulness of God’s Word. The Already Gone study also showed that Sunday school itself was a factor, as children who attended Sunday school were worse off (i.e., more likely to believe gay marriage and abortion should be legal) than those who did not.

FL said:

Are you arguing here that there is “one true religion” in principle, or that there is NOT, in principle? And why do you think so?

Yes, I'm saying directly that there is ONE true religion, and that all the others--Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, Agnosticism, Apatheism, Deism, Hinduism, Zen, etc--are false. Period. The name of the one true religion? His name (for it's actually a Person we're talking about) is Jesus Christ.

"No one else can save us. Indeed, we can be saved only by the power of the one named Jesus and not by any other person." --Acts 4:12, GWT

Only one Person, in the entire history of planet Earth, died on the Cross and took your sin and mine on himself. That Person, is the "only true religion." But how to rationally establish that to a skeptic? Well, a person might start with something simple: is theism or atheism the more rational choice? That's not too difficult, and most people correctly choose theism anyway. Atheism is just a rational disaster anyway, duh. From there, ask some more questions, narrow things down some more, do some more comparing, contrasting, and evaluating. Buddhism says, for example, that human desire is the core problem, while Christianity says that SIN is humanity's core problem. Which claim makes more sense in light of today's media headlines such as the recent bloodbath at Tucson? That's just an example (not trying to answer such questions here and now). Not saying it's easy. Not saying it's quickie. It's not, no it's not. But we simply ask questions, be willing to put all out belief cards on the table for rational examination. and seek to narrow things down a piece at a time till we get to what's true and what's false. IOW, we stop pretending that questions like "what's the one true religion" are answerless, and get down with a sincere rational investigation to seek an answer. Vote the failures off the island and whittle the choices down. If we do that process, the incomparable Lord Jesus Christ, who loves everybody and seeks a personal relationship with them, will be the last Person standing when you're done.

is theism or atheism the more rational choice? That's not too difficult, and most people correctly choose theism anyway. Atheism is just a rational disaster anyway, duh.

Dale Husband said: Once again, FL proves himself to be as dumb as a sack of potatoes (note the spelling). To define truth as conforming to certain dogmas found in a man-made book without any empirical foundation, and to judge all other religions (or non-religious ideas) according to those dogmas is intellectual dishonesty, period. FL needs to remember that he is posting in a public forum and not a private one dominated by him and his fellow religious bigots.

And this:

is theism or atheism the more rational choice? That's not too difficult, and most people correctly choose theism anyway. Atheism is just a rational disaster anyway, duh.

Makes FL a liar, period.

Bob Valerius said: Hoppe, you are one evil dude. Child abuse? Anyone with an 8th grade education knows what that means. But you purport to have a PhD and don't? Prayers for you dude. bob

phantomreader42 said:

Bob Valerius said: Hoppe, you are one evil dude. Child abuse? Anyone with an 8th grade education knows what that means. But you purport to have a PhD and don't? Prayers for you dude. bob

So, threatening a child with neverending torture if they don't believe your lies and devote their entire life to worshiping you is not child abuse in your book? English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

So, threatening a child with neverending torture if they don't believe your lies and devote their entire life to worshiping you is not child abuse in your book? English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Interstice said:

So, threatening a child with neverending torture if they don't believe your lies and devote their entire life to worshiping you is not child abuse in your book? English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Just curious, what scientific evidence do you have from the peer reviewed literature that supports your assertion here? Or is this kind of like "folk psychology"?

Interstice said: Just curious, what scientific evidence do you have from the peer reviewed literature that supports your assertion here? Or is this kind of like "folk psychology"?

Interstice said:

So, threatening a child with neverending torture if they don't believe your lies and devote their entire life to worshiping you is not child abuse in your book? English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Just curious, what scientific evidence do you have from the peer reviewed literature that supports your assertion here? Or is this kind of like "folk psychology"?

A little humorous irony for this thread:

Ken Ham has been ranting for several blogs now about how his “Ark Encounter” is being misrepresented.

And just what the hell does he think his entire website is when it comes to science, “accommodationalist” churches, and secular society?

Mike Elzinga said: A little humorous irony for this thread: Ken Ham has been ranting for several blogs now about how his “Ark Encounter” is being misrepresented.

And just what the hell does he think his entire website is when it comes to science, “accommodationalist” churches, and secular society?

Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

henry said: Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

mplavcan said:

henry said: Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

And here, of course, is a beautiful illustration of the fruits of Georgia Purdom's educational efforts. We cannot underscore enough that creationism generates a toxic mix of ignorance and contempt for science that ultimately impacts ANY scientific findings that people find threatening.

henry said: Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

CreationGate Scandal Rocks Nation!

New documents purported to be from several creationist organizations have recently been released that implicate them in smear tactics, cherry-picking, quote-mining, false citations of scientific literature, and bogus statements of fact. In particular, the documents appear to show that the so-called "Intelligent Design" movement is an effective "front organization" for a loose coalition of creationist activists.

In response to the furor in the media, prominent creationist Ken Ham responded: "This 'CreationGate' scandal is a pure fabrication. For over half a century, creationism has demonstrated its willingness to address troublesome criticisms, acknowledge when its arguments are wrong, give opposing views a respectful hearing, and provide important scientific advances in modern science."

Ham continued: "I couldn't possibly list all the contributions creationism has provided to American technical competitiveness, and creationists have received a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes. Attacks on the legitimacy of creationism ignore the obvious fact that creationism is a respected and respectful element of the mainstream scientific community, endorsed by the world's top scientific minds."

henry said: Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

Well, good old Dr. Purdom replied again!

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2011/02/01/encouragement-from-fellow-brothers-and-sisters-in-christ/

It isn't much, mainly thanking other fundamentalists for writing supporting messages, but it does underscore the shameless dishonesty that she engages in. Dr. Purdom is a LIAR. She reads this blog, she has read these posts. She has complete access to the community and all of the arguments and opinions presented by the posters. Here is what she says...

"Last week after my blogs posted concerning the negative feedback I was receiving from the atheist community concerning what I teach in Sunday school..."

Dr. Purdom knows damned good and well that this is not an "atheist community." Yes, there are atheists here. But there are also Christians. And she KNOWS that. But that would not support her shameless propagandizing, so she represents it in the way she wants to. Lying for Jesus. Explicitly. You are reading this, Purdom. Yes, you are a liar. We have a good grip that you lie to audiences and children about science, and about your motivations in science, and this little tidbit, this shameless fabrication that you knowingly made up, just underscores the petty depths that you will plumb in order to proselytize your personal beliefs and defend your faith in your cognitively dissonant mind.

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

What a pathetic joke. Global warming denialists are just as stupid and/or dishonest as Creationists. I looked at the issue of "Climategate" and after a period of uncertainty eventually found it was one massive case of QUOTE-MINING, which Creationists are known to do! Nice try, henry!

henry said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

What a pathetic joke. Global warming denialists are just as stupid and/or dishonest as Creationists. I looked at the issue of "Climategate" and after a period of uncertainty eventually found it was one massive case of QUOTE-MINING, which Creationists are known to do! Nice try, henry!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 errors in Algore's movie. He directly benefits financially since he owns a few green companies. The more fears he generates, the greater his profits will be. Unfortunately for him, the last two climate change conferences happened to be held in cities that had record cold weather.

Even so, we find Monckton's claims to not only be unsupported but preposterous. First, it's impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen, and when. Second, the U.S. procedure for ratifying treaties requires consent by a supermajority of the Senate — a steep hurdle. Third, it's hard to envision anything coming out of Copenhagen that would change the United States' bedrock principles of freedom and democracy. And fourth, contrary to what Monckton says, the United States can leave an international agreement. So while it pays to be vigilant about threats to U.S. sovereignty, this one is not the threat that Monckton's rhetoric suggests. So Lord Monckton earns a special ruling — Britches on Fire!

[Al Gore] directly benefits financially since he owns a few green companies. The more fears he generates, the greater his profits will be.

Stanton said:

henry said: Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

Why do you say that Global Warming is a fraud when the only people who say so are representatives of heavy-polluting industries, and people hired by these same industries specifically to say that Global Warming is a fraud? Why is it child abuse to teach children about Global Warming? Oh, wait, it's because you're a religious bigot and an idiotic troll.

henry said:

Stanton said:

henry said: Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

Why do you say that Global Warming is a fraud when the only people who say so are representatives of heavy-polluting industries, and people hired by these same industries specifically to say that Global Warming is a fraud? Why is it child abuse to teach children about Global Warming? Oh, wait, it's because you're a religious bigot and an idiotic troll.

Last year, I looked the position of various professional scientific organizations on man made global warming. Some agreed with the statement that global warming was man made. Others disagreed and still others took a neutral stance. It looked like the scientific community doesn't have a consensus on man made global warming. Of course, the term global warming is replaced with climate change. It looks like we don't have global warming anymore.

henry said: Last year, I looked the position of various professional scientific organizations on man made global warming. Some agreed with the statement that global warming was man made. Others disagreed and still others took a neutral stance.

RBH said: Please name the "professional scientific organizations" that disagreed with the proposition that that humans are contributing significantly to climate change and provide appropriate links.

In other words, henry is lying to make Jesus happy.

As usual.

Actually you would be surprised at the ability of children with fundamentalist parents to break out of it. I probably would have succumbed to it from a babysitter who taught me the story of genesis (and that it was true) at that time but have managed to grow up as a Skeptical Atheist, and I am only 13 right now.

henry said stupidly: Last year, I looked the position of various professional scientific organizations on man made global warming. Some agreed with the statement that global warming was man made. Others disagreed and still others took a neutral stance. It looked like the scientific community doesn't have a consensus on man made global warming. Of course, the term global warming is replaced with climate change. It looks like we don't have global warming anymore.

Science thrives on controversy and debate, as long as the participants all agree on the same rules of logic and evidence and use no double standards to judge the facts and issues. It's when one side engages in some sort of trickery that the efforts to reach a definite conclusion to any debate in science are hindered. Here's what can happen: 1. A prolonged controversy among scientists ends when definite evidence is found to support one side of the debate, but the evidence is so complex and laden with uncertainty that only a scientist or someone extremely well read and trained to judge the evidence, can make sense of it all. 2. The side that lost the debate includes members that are financed by powerful special interests (such as fundamentalist churches, fossil fuel companies, or Conservative legislators), who have a vested interest in one side winning or the appearance of a controversy continuing to influence the political process. 3. The losers of the debate withdraw from the mainstream scientific community and found several splinter groups to promote their alternative point of view. They do so not among scientists to have their questionable claims peer reviewed, but directly to the general public as FACTS. 4. Despite scientists in the mainstream community having dealt completely with all the possible objections to the issue in question, the dissenting side attempts to restart the controversy among the general public, not by asking legitimate questions, but by asserting that there is a conspiracy that caused them to lose the debate among mainsteam scientists. They then engage in fallacies that sound scientific but are not. 5. They appeal to the public for financial aid, and to spread their message via the internet and in other popular forums. Which would you consider more credible? Ten organizations of 100 members each, that were founded less than ten years ago, including many members in two or more of these groups, which all have the same dogma; or one group that has over 100,000 members, no dogmas, and is over 100 years old?

William said: Actually you would be surprised at the ability of children with fundamentalist parents to break out of it. I probably would have succumbed to it from a babysitter who taught me the story of genesis (and that it was true) at that time but have managed to grow up as a Skeptical Atheist, and I am only 13 right now.

RBH said:

William said: Actually you would be surprised at the ability of children with fundamentalist parents to break out of it. I probably would have succumbed to it from a babysitter who taught me the story of genesis (and that it was true) at that time but have managed to grow up as a Skeptical Atheist, and I am only 13 right now.

William, I congratulate you, but you are not typical. If you can, read Ed Babinski's book Leaving the Fold. It's not at all easy for many people. I was an administrator of (the late lamented) Internet Infidels Discussion Board for years, and we had a number of former fundamentalist and evangelical believers who had seen the light and who told us of the difficulties they had, both internally with their own beliefs and fears and externally with social pressure from family and (often former) friends.

William said: Actually you would be surprised at the ability of children with fundamentalist parents to break out of it. I probably would have succumbed to it from a babysitter who taught me the story of genesis (and that it was true) at that time but have managed to grow up as a Skeptical Atheist, and I am only 13 right now.

henry said:

William said: Actually you would be surprised at the ability of children with fundamentalist parents to break out of it. I probably would have succumbed to it from a babysitter who taught me the story of genesis (and that it was true) at that time but have managed to grow up as a Skeptical Atheist, and I am only 13 right now.

Welcome to the dark side.

henry said:

William said: Actually you would be surprised at the ability of children with fundamentalist parents to break out of it. I probably would have succumbed to it from a babysitter who taught me the story of genesis (and that it was true) at that time but have managed to grow up as a Skeptical Atheist, and I am only 13 right now.

Welcome to the dark side.

henry said:

William said: Actually you would be surprised at the ability of children with fundamentalist parents to break out of it. I probably would have succumbed to it from a babysitter who taught me the story of genesis (and that it was true) at that time but have managed to grow up as a Skeptical Atheist, and I am only 13 right now.

Welcome to the dark side.

Dale Husband said:

henry said:

William said: Actually you would be surprised at the ability of children with fundamentalist parents to break out of it. I probably would have succumbed to it from a babysitter who taught me the story of genesis (and that it was true) at that time but have managed to grow up as a Skeptical Atheist, and I am only 13 right now.

Welcome to the dark side.

This is not Star Wars, dumbass!

How on earth is that considered child abuse?! That's the truth anyway.

dfgh said: How on earth is that considered child abuse?! That's the truth anyway.

Stanton said:

henry said:

William said: Actually you would be surprised at the ability of children with fundamentalist parents to break out of it. I probably would have succumbed to it from a babysitter who taught me the story of genesis (and that it was true) at that time but have managed to grow up as a Skeptical Atheist, and I am only 13 right now.

Welcome to the dark side.

Explain to us why William is in darkness when literally everything you have ever said is either a blatant lie, or has been deliberately twisted into a blatant lie. Explain to us why teaching children about global warming is child abuse, and please explain to us why telling a child that he or she will burn in Hell for literally forever simply because he or she does not believe that Jesus rode around on a dinosaur, or that the Bible was intended to be a science textbook?

henry said: Jesus could have chosen any dinosaur to ride since He has control over nature, but He chose a colt instead. Mark 11:7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

Stanton said: Explain to us why William is in darkness when literally everything you have ever said is either a blatant lie, or has been deliberately twisted into a blatant lie. Explain to us why teaching children about global warming is child abuse, and please explain to us why telling a child that he or she will burn in Hell for literally forever simply because he or she does not believe that Jesus rode around on a dinosaur, or that the Bible was intended to be a science textbook?

henry the lying moron said: Jesus could have chosen any dinosaur to ride since He has control over nature, but He chose a colt instead.

Mark 11:7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

Dale Husband said:

henry said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Showing Algore's An Inconvenient Truth to school kids is the real child abuse. Why are we scaring them with the scientific fraud of man made global warming, especially after climategate?

What a pathetic joke. Global warming denialists are just as stupid and/or dishonest as Creationists. I looked at the issue of "Climategate" and after a period of uncertainty eventually found it was one massive case of QUOTE-MINING, which Creationists are known to do! Nice try, henry!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 errors in Algore's movie. He directly benefits financially since he owns a few green companies. The more fears he generates, the greater his profits will be. Unfortunately for him, the last two climate change conferences happened to be held in cities that had record cold weather.

Yes, you moron, in winter you should expect to have cold weather, even if the overall climate around the world is getting warmer. In fact, a warmer atmosphere due to increased greenhouse gases would result in greater evaporation of water, which in turn would result in both hotter summers and colder winters. And Christopher Monckton has NO credibility! Look at this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/20/christopher-monckton/british-climate-skeptic-says-copenhagen-treaty-thr/

Even so, we find Monckton's claims to not only be unsupported but preposterous. First, it's impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen, and when. Second, the U.S. procedure for ratifying treaties requires consent by a supermajority of the Senate — a steep hurdle. Third, it's hard to envision anything coming out of Copenhagen that would change the United States' bedrock principles of freedom and democracy. And fourth, contrary to what Monckton says, the United States can leave an international agreement. So while it pays to be vigilant about threats to U.S. sovereignty, this one is not the threat that Monckton's rhetoric suggests. So Lord Monckton earns a special ruling — Britches on Fire!

Monckton is a LIAR. If he was lying in this case, why should we believe his assertions elsewhere?

Stanton said:

henry the lying moron said: Jesus could have chosen any dinosaur to ride since He has control over nature, but He chose a colt instead.

So why did the authors of the Bible never mention anything about any dinosaurs ever in the Bible? Why did Jesus have to have people bring Him a colt? If He has absolute mastery over Nature, why couldn't He just magically poof a giant levitating unicorn into existence to ride? Why couldn't He magically mindcontrol a herd of dinosaurs to carry Him? How does this explain why teaching Creationism to children is not child abuse, but teaching children about global warming is?

Mark 11:7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

Really, why is it so hard for you to answer any of our questions to you? Oh, wait, it's because you're a Lying Bigot For Jesus.

henry said:

Stanton said:

henry the lying moron said: Jesus could have chosen any dinosaur to ride since He has control over nature, but He chose a colt instead.

So why did the authors of the Bible never mention anything about any dinosaurs ever in the Bible? Why did Jesus have to have people bring Him a colt? If He has absolute mastery over Nature, why couldn't He just magically poof a giant levitating unicorn into existence to ride? Why couldn't He magically mindcontrol a herd of dinosaurs to carry Him? How does this explain why teaching Creationism to children is not child abuse, but teaching children about global warming is?

Mark 11:7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

Really, why is it so hard for you to answer any of our questions to you? Oh, wait, it's because you're a Lying Bigot For Jesus.

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. This is in fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 9:9 behold, thy King. This is clearly a Messianic prophecy, quoted as such in Matthew 21:4-5; and John 12:14-15. The event is also described in Mark and Luke, all four writers clearly regarding it as of profound significance. Zechariah 9:9 9:9 having salvation. The King who comes is fully righteous and able to bring salvation. Nevertheless, He is also “lowly” (or “afflicted”) and will enter Jerusalem in a manner not like kings would, with chariots and horses, but on a lowly donkey, thus identifying Himself with the poor. Zechariah 9:9 9:9 foal of an ass. This terminology indicates the ass on which He would ride is not yet broken, for it is still following its mother. Yet, when the time came, the unbroken ass would willingly obey its Creator. These were taken from ICR's online Defender's Bible. Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Job 40:17 ... This description supports the theory mentioned above that a behemoth may have been a dinosaur (see notes on Job... Job 40:19 ... chief of the ways. The behemoth was the “chief” of all created land animals, which could only, therefore, have been one of the great land dinosaurs. These, like all other animals, were created on the fifth and sixth days of... Job 41:10 the leviathan, God could do so, just as He could overcome the... Job 41:34 ... monologue seems to confirm that these two great reptiles, behemoth and leviathan, were brought to Job’s attention to suggest that the great Serpent was the cause of his sufferings. God was well able to defeat Satan. Furthermore, if God... Job 40:15 ... behemoth. The word “behemoth” means, simply, “huge beast,” and commentators commonly take it to be either an elephant or a hippopotamus. The subsequent description, however, fits neither of these, nor any other living... Job, the oldest book of the Bible, has a description of both behemoth and leviathan, which seem to fit a dinosaur. The Bible doesn't have the word dinosaur, but if we rename all dinosaurs behemoths and leviathan, then they'll fit in the Bible.

And henry still can't explain why teaching Global Warming to children is child abuse, while teaching Creationism supposedly is not, nor can he explain why Jesus, Lord and Magical Master of Nature, had to rely on other people to bring him an ass (which you also stupidly said, earlier, was a colt, and not an ass), rather than magically mindcontrol dinosaurs or magically conjure a steed out of thin air.

ben said: ...The kind of mental rubbish from a mind whose most nuanced understanding of dinosaurs is, "they wuz real big", and thinks it knows the history of the universe from reading some old book of fairy tales. Some people will perform any mental gymnastics necessary to avoid coping with the obvious fact that the authors of the bible didn't know a single thing that wasn't known to bronze age sheepherders.

henry said: Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406791/posts Pretty soon we'll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406791/posts Pretty soon we'll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Cherry picking idiot! The "record cold" is not in the equatorial regions, nor in the summer months. If they were lower in temperature too, you'd be right.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it ..." -Upton Sinclair

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406791/posts Pretty soon we'll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Cherry picking idiot! The "record cold" is not in the equatorial regions, nor in the summer months. If they were lower in temperature too, you'd be right.

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406791/posts Pretty soon we'll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Cherry picking idiot! The "record cold" is not in the equatorial regions, nor in the summer months. If they were lower in temperature too, you'd be right.

henry can't explain, if there is an ice age on the way, why are the polar ice caps and glaciers of the world are receding at record rates. Of course, that's because he's a cherry-picking idiot.

henry said:

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406791/posts Pretty soon we'll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Cherry picking idiot! The "record cold" is not in the equatorial regions, nor in the summer months. If they were lower in temperature too, you'd be right.

henry can't explain, if there is an ice age on the way, why are the polar ice caps and glaciers of the world are receding at record rates. Of course, that's because he's a cherry-picking idiot.

This is about the Himalayan glacier goof. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html I wonder how much is fraudulent science. We already know from Climategate that the data was faked, but apparently it's acceptable science.

Also, henry, explain to us why Creationism is not fraudulent, either.

henry said:

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406791/posts Pretty soon we'll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Cherry picking idiot! The "record cold" is not in the equatorial regions, nor in the summer months. If they were lower in temperature too, you'd be right.

henry can't explain, if there is an ice age on the way, why are the polar ice caps and glaciers of the world are receding at record rates. Of course, that's because he's a cherry-picking idiot.

This is about the Himalayan glacier goof. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html I wonder how much is fraudulent science. We already know from Climategate that the data was faked, but apparently it's acceptable science.

The IPCC's shock prediction in its 2007 report that the likelihood of the glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" thus had huge impact in India and other Asian countries, and it is precisely this statement that the IPCC has now been forced to disown.

I have a few, if not outright disagreements with, reservations over the AGW case -- and if I were to be handed credible arguments against AGW I would have no reason to disbelieve them.

However, after the hysteria and obvious smear tactics of "ClimateGate" and the like, it's almost embarrassing to even admit to modest reservations. The AGW faction may not walk on water -- though that might come in handy with sea level rise -- but the critics REALLY need to lose the tinfoil hats.

mrg said: I have a few, if not outright disagreements with, reservations over the AGW case -- and if I were to be handed credible arguments against AGW I would have no reason to disbelieve them. However, after the hysteria and obvious smear tactics of "ClimateGate" and the like, it's almost embarrassing to even admit to modest reservations. The AGW faction may not walk on water -- though that might come in handy with sea level rise -- but the critics REALLY need to lose the tinfoil hats.

Stanton said: And what? Stop admitting that the evil scientists are evil for not believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible or not believing that Jesus could have road on a raptor?

mrg said:

Stanton said: And what? Stop admitting that the evil scientists are evil for not believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible or not believing that Jesus could have road on a raptor?

I presume this is a rhetorical question?

J. Biggs said: I like Stanton's reductio ad absurdum style of argumentation.

J. Biggs said:

henry said:

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2406791/posts Pretty soon we'll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Cherry picking idiot! The "record cold" is not in the equatorial regions, nor in the summer months. If they were lower in temperature too, you'd be right.

henry can't explain, if there is an ice age on the way, why are the polar ice caps and glaciers of the world are receding at record rates. Of course, that's because he's a cherry-picking idiot.

This is about the Himalayan glacier goof. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html I wonder how much is fraudulent science. We already know from Climategate that the data was faked, but apparently it's acceptable science.

Henry, It is obvious to anyone with a background in science that "Climate Gate" (where CRU was found to have done nothing wrong after multiple investigations) and "Glacier Gate" are based primarily on misrepresentation, (i.e. quoting authors out of context to change the meanings of what they are saying) and exagerations of the importance of errors contained in publications, among other things. Almost all scientific research contains errors, however, in peer reviewed publications, they tend to be minor and they tend to get corrected in future publications many times by the same researcher(s) that made the initial error. Here is a quote from your biased source.

The IPCC's shock prediction in its 2007 report that the likelihood of the glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" thus had huge impact in India and other Asian countries, and it is precisely this statement that the IPCC has now been forced to disown.

What this story fails to mention is that Pachauri and as well as a large number of scientists with expertise in climate change have stated that these issues do not undermine the conclusions of the report that recent warming of the climate system is unequivocal and is largely due to human activities. So the denialists are essentially making a mountain out of a molehill here. The main conclusion of the IPCC publication still stands, even if a minor part of the publication was in error; an error which was corrected by Pachauri in subsequent research. So it appears Climatoligists weren't lying after all. But your sources most certainly were.

Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]?

Chortle.

Wolfhound said: Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]?

mrg said:

J. Biggs said: I like Stanton's reductio ad absurdum style of argumentation.

However, subtle it is not.

mrg said:

Wolfhound said: Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]?

Heh! Why not cite Marvel Comics? It would have more credibility and scientific authority.

"There is speculation by some that if the sun is now growing quiet, cooling may be starting.”

There is speculation by some that dumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere may not be a good idea, regardless of how the sun behaves in the next few years. Perturbing a system known to have non linear responses seems unwise in the extreme, especially since all life on earth depends critically on the stability of the system. Increasing the probability of sudden catastrophic climate change has never been a wise policy and never will be. This is especially true since more efficient and cheaper energy sources could easily be developed that could reduce the amount of carbon released. You can make up scandals all you want to, but that won't change reality.

As for teaching children, they should be taught that their actions have predictable consequences and that ignoring a scientific consensus has consequences as well. This is true for global climate change, AIDS and evolution whether anyone likes it or not. Deal with it.

Stanton said: You can't be subtle with deliberately pithed idiots like henry or Robert Byers.

Then again, they're so dense, even reductio ad absurdum can't penetrate much, either.

Wolfhound said: Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]? Chortle.

henry said:

Wolfhound said: Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]? Chortle.

Excellent discussion of sunspot activity and temperature.

Stanton said: What the Institute for Creation Research does is not "discussion." It is lying and supporting baseless claims with lies and crude distortion of information. And you still haven't explained why it's so important to believe that Jesus could have road on a raptor, or why He is supposed to be the Lord of Nature, even though He had to rely on other people to provide Him with a donkey for a mount.

J. Biggs said: ICR is going against the scientific consensus here yet again, and this time with no apparent reason other than the fact that they just hate science and want to attack its validity every chance they get.

mrg said:

J. Biggs said: ICR is going against the scientific consensus here yet again, and this time with no apparent reason other than the fact that they just hate science and want to attack its validity every chance they get.

I have heard it said that some fundies don't think the Big G would allow global warming to take place. However, since fundies are quick to interpret natural calamities that of course are always happening as a sign that the Big G is irritated with us, that seems inconsistent even by fundy notions of reasoning.

J. Biggs said: ... and that global warming somehow signifies the beginning of the apocalipse they all seem to want so much.

True that.