Major holidays coming

First, there’s Kitzmas on Dec 20th, the 7th anniversary of Judge Jones’ 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Actually that was funny.
However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging.
I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution.
A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

And you know Byers' track record...

You know, there's this fantastic hedge fund run by a Bernie Madoff--every bit as solid as creationism...

Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

Oh yeah, evolution will definitely collapse. Read about it here

oops, bad link. Guess it really is collapsing!

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

DING! DING! DING! BRAUGH! BRAUGH! BRAUGH! CONGRATULATIONS Robert Byers ! YOU ARE THE ONE MILLIONTH PERSON TO PREDICT THE IMMINENT DEMISE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! MAJOR PRIZES ARE YOURS! All you have to do to collect is to be right. But after all, a million people have been wrong before you! Somebody's got to be right sometime!

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

On a different note, yesterday I went to a couple of videos on youtube about Nibiru and asked where it was? Strangely I was banned.

What have the creationists achieved this year anyone, anyone? Whilst in the science world, how many papers were published? I’m sure the people here would know more than I would. Didn’t a team create a working cell from spare parts? More fossils of feathery dinosaurs. What other cool things happened this year?

MichaelJ said:

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

A whopping TWO "research" articles? http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/issue/view/26 What have the creationists achieved this year anyone, anyone? Whilst in the science world, how many papers were published? I'm sure the people here would know more than I would. Didn't a team create a working cell from spare parts? More fossils of feathery dinosaurs. What other cool things happened this year?

MichaelJ said:

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

What have the creationists achieved this year anyone, anyone? Whilst in the science world, how many papers were published? I'm sure the people here would know more than I would. Didn't a team create a working cell from spare parts? More fossils of feathery dinosaurs. What other cool things happened this year?

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

Video of Judge Jones public talk on 9 December at the University of Oklahoma discussing the Kitzmiller trial, intelligent design and related topics with a Q and A is here:

http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2012/12/judge-jones-on-intelligent-design.html

The film was made with permission of Judge Jones by Dr. Bruce Prescott. Bruce is a strong supporter of evolution, a Board member of Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education ( http://www.oklascience.org/ )and a former member of the national board of trustees of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, where he served with Barbara Forrest. His organization, Mainstream Baptists, opposes the Southern Baptist Association and works to return the Baptist Church to the historical position of strong separation of church and state, individual governance of each congregation, etc.

“Evolution” wasn’t on trial. ID/creationism was on trial. ID/creationism lost.

— harold

Frank J said:

“Evolution” wasn’t on trial. ID/creationism was on trial. ID/creationism lost.

— harold

Yeah, but only because that liberal, atheist activist judge refused to let the Isaac Newton of Information Theory testify. ;-)

Frank J said:

“Evolution” wasn’t on trial. ID/creationism was on trial. ID/creationism lost.

— harold

Yeah, but only because that liberal, atheist activist judge refused to let the Isaac Newton of Information Theory testify. ;-)

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

harold said:

Frank J said:

“Evolution” wasn’t on trial. ID/creationism was on trial. ID/creationism lost.

— harold

Yeah, but only because that liberal, atheist activist judge refused to let the Isaac Newton of Information Theory testify. ;-)

Frank J helpfully used an emoticon, but still, I hope everyone else realizes that he is kidding here. The best guess as to why Dembski didn't testify is that the defense realized that he would make a terrible witness, but that's only a guess.

Robert Byers said: ... lawyers...defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging.

I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

Kevin B said:

Frank J said:

“Evolution” wasn’t on trial. ID/creationism was on trial. ID/creationism lost.

— harold

Yeah, but only because that liberal, atheist activist judge refused to let the Isaac Newton of Information Theory testify. ;-)

Does "testify" in this usage mean "to make an utter fool of oneself"? Was the Wizard of ID (who refused to make a deposition because they wouldn't let him have a whole lawyer just for himself) somebody different?

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

George W. Bush, who, in a later comment, not the clueless “teach the controversy” one from before the trial that’s always cited, suggested that he approved of the judge’s decision

"First, there’s Kitzmas on Dec 20th, the 7th anniversary of Judge Jones’ 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover."

Yes, the Darwinian judge ruled as expected.

Frank J said: ....you probably know that Judge Jones is a Christian....

Tenncrain said: Speaking of lawyers, two of the lawyers for the plaintiffs (the side challenging ID) were open about their Christian faith, a third lawyer (Eric Rothschild) being Jewish. The lead expert witness for the plaintiffs (Brown Univ biologist Ken Miller) is Christian. Of the 11 regular plaintiffs, 8 of them IIRC were Christian. Yep, a big atheistic bias here, folks.

Ray Martinez said: "First, there’s Kitzmas on Dec 20th, the 7th anniversary of Judge Jones’ 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover." Yes, the Darwinian judge ruled as expected.

Ray Martinez said: Since all Atheists accept, defend, and promote evolution with fanatical zeal, and since evolution uses pro-Atheist assumptions to explain reality (Naturalism-Materialism), these facts say all other persons mentioned cannot be real Christians. Real Christians do not accept pro-Atheism assumptions about reality, neither do they accept the Atheist explanation of life. The only thing left to explain is why do these "Christians" THINK they are Christians? Short answer: existence of an invisible Deceiver. This is why we are Christians and have faith: whatever the Bible says, good or bad, is true.

Ray Martinez said: Since all Atheists accept, defend, and promote evolution with fanatical zeal, and since evolution uses pro-Atheist assumptions to explain reality...

...whatever the Bible says, good or bad, is true.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Since all Atheists accept, defend, and promote evolution with fanatical zeal, and since evolution uses pro-Atheist assumptions to explain reality (Naturalism-Materialism), these facts say all other persons mentioned cannot be real Christians. Real Christians do not accept pro-Atheism assumptions about reality, neither do they accept the Atheist explanation of life. The only thing left to explain is why do these "Christians" THINK they are Christians? Short answer: existence of an invisible Deceiver. This is why we are Christians and have faith: whatever the Bible says, good or bad, is true.

But Christians, Ray Martinez, believe in non-existent gods, just like your "Invisible Deceiver." Their gods are no more real than Harry Potter is. Christians believe that fictional characters are real. The Christian Biblical zombies are no more real than the zombies on TV in The Living Dead. Christians can't distinguish fact from fantasy. And you can't show any different, Ray Martinez. You can't show anybody a god. You can't even show anybody a picture of a god. You can't say how to detect a god. You can't get your impotent gods to do anything, not the least little thing, here in the real world, because they do not live in the real world. They are fictional, just like Batman. You are mistaken in your religious convictions, Ray Martinez. You believe in things that are not real. Now you can squawk and whine about how blinding naturalism is, but naturalism makes claims you can test for yourself. You probably have a car. You probably know how to use a phone. Every time you do so, you confirm naturalism. You can deny all day long and the nighttime too - and you will - but what you cannot do is to provide even the slightest shred of objective, testable evidence for the existence of gods. Why should anybody believe your fairy tales? All you got is hot air, Ray. You got nothing but delusions.

Ray Martinez said: This is why we are Christians and have faith: whatever the Bible says, good or bad, is true.

Ray Martinez said: Yep, we are deluded (= Atheist explanation of Theism). Our position is that Atheists AND Darwinists/Evolutionists are deluded. There is no evidence supporting microevolution or speciation on this planet: the delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.

Paul Burnett said:

Ray Martinez said: "First, there’s Kitzmas on Dec 20th, the 7th anniversary of Judge Jones’ 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover." Yes, the Darwinian judge ruled as expected.

Not true. The creationists were crowing that Judge Jones was one of them - a conservative Republican - and the anti-evolution / pro-creationist decision was in the bag.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Yep, we are deluded (= Atheist explanation of Theism). Our position is that Atheists AND Darwinists/Evolutionists are deluded. There is no evidence supporting microevolution or speciation on this planet: the delusion is working on those who believe in evolution, not God.

Accept reality Ray. You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Since all Atheists accept, defend, and promote evolution with fanatical zeal, and since evolution uses pro-Atheist assumptions to explain reality (Naturalism-Materialism), these facts say all other persons mentioned cannot be real Christians. Real Christians do not accept pro-Atheism assumptions about reality, neither do they accept the Atheist explanation of life. The only thing left to explain is why do these "Christians" THINK they are Christians? Short answer: existence of an invisible Deceiver. This is why we are Christians and have faith: whatever the Bible says, good or bad, is true.

But Christians, Ray Martinez, believe in non-existent gods, just like your "Invisible Deceiver." Their gods are no more real than Harry Potter is. Christians believe that fictional characters are real. The Christian Biblical zombies are no more real than the zombies on TV in The Living Dead. Christians can't distinguish fact from fantasy. And you can't show any different, Ray Martinez. You can't show anybody a god. You can't even show anybody a picture of a god. You can't say how to detect a god. You can't get your impotent gods to do anything, not the least little thing, here in the real world, because they do not live in the real world. They are fictional, just like Batman. You are mistaken in your religious convictions, Ray Martinez. You believe in things that are not real. Now you can squawk and whine about how blinding naturalism is, but naturalism makes claims you can test for yourself. You probably have a car. You probably know how to use a phone. Every time you do so, you confirm naturalism. You can deny all day long and the nighttime too - and you will - but what you cannot do is to provide even the slightest shred of objective, testable evidence for the existence of gods. Why should anybody believe your fairy tales? All you got is hot air, Ray. You got nothing but delusions.

Yep, we are deluded (= Atheist explanation of Theism). Our position is that Atheists AND Darwinists/Evolutionists are deluded.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Since all Atheists accept, defend, and promote evolution with fanatical zeal, and since evolution uses pro-Atheist assumptions to explain reality (Naturalism-Materialism), these facts say all other persons mentioned cannot be real Christians. Real Christians do not accept pro-Atheism assumptions about reality, neither do they accept the Atheist explanation of life. The only thing left to explain is why do these "Christians" THINK they are Christians? Short answer: existence of an invisible Deceiver. This is why we are Christians and have faith: whatever the Bible says, good or bad, is true.

But Christians, Ray Martinez, believe in non-existent gods, just like your "Invisible Deceiver." Their gods are no more real than Harry Potter is. Christians believe that fictional characters are real. The Christian Biblical zombies are no more real than the zombies on TV in The Living Dead. Christians can't distinguish fact from fantasy.

And you can't show any different, Ray Martinez. You can't show anybody a god. You can't even show anybody a picture of a god. You can't say how to detect a god. You can't get your impotent gods to do anything, not the least little thing, here in the real world, because they do not live in the real world. They are fictional, just like Batman.

Now you can squawk and whine about how blinding naturalism is, but naturalism makes claims you can test for yourself. You probably have a car. You probably know how to use a phone. Every time you do so, you confirm naturalism.

There's no arguing with Ray, in a sense. But having him here is a real blessing. His obvious blindness and deafness to reality, his frantic averrals that black is white, his flat blank denial of rational thought, will make anyone not so far into lala-land as he is blink and take stock.

So welcome, Ray. Tell us more. Tell us all about the unconvenanted miracles required for the Flood, the layers of them, one over another. Tell us exactly why a watch argues for a watchmaker, and in precisely the same way, how this analogy is perfectly transferrable to a Universe and a Universe-maker. Tell us more about how the species are observed as immutable, and nylonase and citrate ingestion, the Faroe Islands mouse, the London Underground mosquito and the apple maggot fly are figments of some Darwinist's imagination. Tell us how you knew that the evolutionist judge in "Kitzmiller" would come down on the godless side, and point us to the pre-trial reference where you said he would. This is the internet, y'know. It's all out there - if it ever was.

Tell us all, Ray. We'll explore your world and gasp at its wonders. Well, we'll gasp at something or other, anyway.

Speak your mind, Ray. Lay it all out for us, and the unseen watchers. The more people who know your mind, the better. They'll reflect that this would be their mind on creationism. So it's all good, Ray. Everybody wins. You get a platform, they get a horrible example, and society gets a small increase in rationality. What's not to like?

Welcome, Ray. Say on.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Since all Atheists accept, defend, and promote evolution with fanatical zeal, and since evolution uses pro-Atheist assumptions to explain reality (Naturalism-Materialism), these facts say all other persons mentioned cannot be real Christians. Real Christians do not accept pro-Atheism assumptions about reality, neither do they accept the Atheist explanation of life. The only thing left to explain is why do these "Christians" THINK they are Christians? Short answer: existence of an invisible Deceiver. This is why we are Christians and have faith: whatever the Bible says, good or bad, is true.

But Christians, Ray Martinez, believe in non-existent gods, just like your "Invisible Deceiver." Their gods are no more real than Harry Potter is. Christians believe that fictional characters are real. The Christian Biblical zombies are no more real than the zombies on TV in The Living Dead. Christians can't distinguish fact from fantasy.

We completely disagree. Atheists and Darwinists are horribly deluded, not us.

And you can't show any different, Ray Martinez. You can't show anybody a god. You can't even show anybody a picture of a god. You can't say how to detect a god. You can't get your impotent gods to do anything, not the least little thing, here in the real world, because they do not live in the real world. They are fictional, just like Batman.

The concept of design exists in nature, we see it---it corresponds logically to the work of an invisible Designer, not unintelligent natural selection (which only exists in your imagination). And the Shroud of Turin has long been proven authentic in the eyes of all honest and objective persons.

Cars and telephones have nothing to do with Naturalism.

And the assumptions of Naturalism require a natural explanation.

Why are the creationists all out in full force? Are they caroling or something?

Ray Martinez said:

Frank J said: ....you probably know that Judge Jones is a Christian....

His ruling against ID (Creator-did-it) and for evolution (unintelligence-did-it) is good evidence that he is not a real Christian.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." --Adolf Hitler (1922) Anyone can claim to be a Christian.

harold said:

Ray Martinez said:

Frank J said: ....you probably know that Judge Jones is a Christian....

His ruling against ID (Creator-did-it) and for evolution (unintelligence-did-it) is good evidence that he is not a real Christian.

There was no such ruling, except in your mind. Judge Jones ruled that sectarian dogma cannot be taught as "science" at taxpayer expense.

As your ranting here proves, it can still be freely expressed. In fact the ruling protects your rights. I know that you cannot understand this, in the way that a person with alexia due to permanent brain damage can know longer understand written words. I point this out for the sake of third party readers.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Since all Atheists accept, defend, and promote evolution with fanatical zeal, and since evolution uses pro-Atheist assumptions to explain reality (Naturalism-Materialism), these facts say all other persons mentioned cannot be real Christians. Real Christians do not accept pro-Atheism assumptions about reality, neither do they accept the Atheist explanation of life. The only thing left to explain is why do these "Christians" THINK they are Christians? Short answer: existence of an invisible Deceiver. This is why we are Christians and have faith: whatever the Bible says, good or bad, is true.

But Christians, Ray Martinez, believe in non-existent gods, just like your "Invisible Deceiver." Their gods are no more real than Harry Potter is. Christians believe that fictional characters are real. The Christian Biblical zombies are no more real than the zombies on TV in The Living Dead. Christians can't distinguish fact from fantasy.

We completely disagree. Atheists and Darwinists are horribly deluded, not us.

BZZZT! Wrong! The only sane answer is, I am not deluded, and here is the evidence which backs me up. But you try to dodge the question because you have no evidence. Not a scrap. You're deluded, all right.

And you can't show any different, Ray Martinez. You can't show anybody a god. You can't even show anybody a picture of a god. You can't say how to detect a god. You can't get your impotent gods to do anything, not the least little thing, here in the real world, because they do not live in the real world. They are fictional, just like Batman.

The concept of design exists in nature, we see it---it corresponds logically to the work of an invisible Designer, not unintelligent natural selection (which only exists in your imagination). And the Shroud of Turin has long been proven authentic in the eyes of all honest and objective persons.

Strike as non-responsive. You can't show anybody one of your gods. You can't take a picture of your gods. You can't produce a recording of your gods. You can't detect your fictional gods in any way whatsoever. Your gods can't do one tiny little thing here in the real world. They can't change a tire. They can't break a buck. They can't do anything. Why should anybody believe your fairy tales, Ray? Just because you say so?

Cars and telephones have nothing to do with Naturalism.

You're just making that up, Ray. There were no gods involved in any capacity in the design and manufacture and operation of your cell phone, for example. It's all pure naturalism. Gods just aren't necessary, any more than Harry Potter is necessary. Gods are useless in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Ray. Completely superfluous. Nobody needs 'em. They're no good, because they have no effect on reality.

And the assumptions of Naturalism require a natural explanation.

But you have no other explanation, Ray, except to say "But Harry Potter did it!" Why should anybody believe that crap, Ray?

Ray Martinez said:

Frank J said: ....you probably know that Judge Jones is a Christian....

His ruling against ID (Creator-did-it) and for evolution (unintelligence-did-it) is good evidence that he is not a real Christian. "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." --Adolf Hitler (1922) Anyone can claim to be a Christian.

Time to send Mr. Martinez to the bathroom wall.

So, Ray Martinez, why should anybody believe any of your loony opinions? When you say that Harry Potter walked on water two thousand years ago, when you say your Biblical zombies (Matthew 27:52-53) are different from zombies in The Walking Dead, when you say that three gods are the same number of gods as one god, why should anybody take you seriously? That stuff is just stupid nonsense.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Go ahead, Ray, tell me how I can, for example, detect design in nature.

What I want is something like a stud finder, or a radar detector. You know, something I can use myself to tell me when a thing is designed or not.

Because I sure don't trust your loony assertions, Ray. You're deluded. You see gods where there are none.

SLC said: Mr. Martinez is a liar. Judge Jones is a communicant of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. His pastor gave him an attaboy after Sunday services after the Dover decision was announced. Biologist Ken Miller, who is a devout Roman Catholic, who was also a witness for the plaintiffs at the Dover trial.

SLC said: Time to send Mr. Martinez to the bathroom wall.

Ray Martinez said:

SLC said: Mr. Martinez is a liar. Judge Jones is a communicant of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. His pastor gave him an attaboy after Sunday services after the Dover decision was announced. Biologist Ken Miller, who is a devout Roman Catholic, who was also a witness for the plaintiffs at the Dover trial.

Yes, Jones and his Pastor CLAIM to be Christians. His ruling against Creator-did-it, which is a ruling for unintelligence-did-it, supports a claim that says these two men are not real Christians. If Jones was following Christ he would have ruled for the Father of Christ (Creator-did-it), and not for the explanation of evidence that Atheists must accept. The fact that Jones's Pastor approved of his blasphemy supports a claim that says he is not a real Christian either. It's hard to understand what you don't understand? ANYONE can claim to be a Christian. Your belief that a clerical collar automatically makes one a Christian, instead of one's actions, says much about your impressionableness. The same goes for Ken Miller. His claim of being a Christian is contradicted by the fact that he accepts pro-Atheism assumptions (Naturalism-Materialism) about reality and evidence. Again, it's hard to understand what you don't understand?

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

DING! DING! DING! BRAUGH! BRAUGH! BRAUGH! CONGRATULATIONS Robert Byers ! YOU ARE THE ONE MILLIONTH PERSON TO PREDICT THE IMMINENT DEMISE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! MAJOR PRIZES ARE YOURS! All you have to do to collect is to be right. But after all, a million people have been wrong before you! Somebody's got to be right sometime!

SLC said: Mr. Martinez is a liar. Judge Jones is a communicant of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. His pastor gave him an attaboy after Sunday services after the Dover decision was announced. Biologist Ken Miller, who is a devout Roman Catholic, who was also a witness for the plaintiffs at the Dover trial.

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

DING! DING! DING! BRAUGH! BRAUGH! BRAUGH! CONGRATULATIONS Robert Byers ! YOU ARE THE ONE MILLIONTH PERSON TO PREDICT THE IMMINENT DEMISE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! MAJOR PRIZES ARE YOURS! All you have to do to collect is to be right. But after all, a million people have been wrong before you! Somebody's got to be right sometime!

Pretty soon I'll need to know where I can collect! One millionth!? If that many before me there must be something to it! The Times are different today then 50 years ago. YEC was ignored, not because of lack of quality, but they can't ignore ID scientists and this is what will break the error. Credibility of the critics as opposed to the merits of the criticism. The merits were fine from YEC but ignored. The reaction relative to evolution has always been held up by the credibility of its proponents(scientists) and not the merits. It is the identity/credibility that will unravel evolution because it will force a closer examination of the merits of the case. It will be another Happy New year for crusading creationism(s).

Karen S. said: Why are the creationists all out in full force? Are they caroling or something?

Ray Martinez said:

SLC said: Mr. Martinez is a liar. Judge Jones is a communicant of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. His pastor gave him an attaboy after Sunday services after the Dover decision was announced. Biologist Ken Miller, who is a devout Roman Catholic, who was also a witness for the plaintiffs at the Dover trial.

The Atheists, here at Pandas, approve and defend these Christians. I offer the fact above as supporting a claim that says Jones, his Pastor, and Ken Miller are NOT real Christians. Atheists, of course, would never approve of a real Christian.

Ray Martinez said:

SLC said: Time to send Mr. Martinez to the bathroom wall.

The standard call for censorship (send him to Siberia). Yes, censorship works, Stalin proved it.

Hey Ray, there is some guy on the bathroom wall who is trying to say that all the dinosaurs who are carnivores started out as herbivores then changed into carnivores. Now Ray, everyone knows you are an immutableist, so how about setting this guy straight. You know, why don't you just present all your evidence and convince him. He's not really a christian no matter what he claims, right? So go to it Ray, set him straight for all of us. Thanks in advance.

DS said: Hey Ray, there is some guy on the bathroom wall who is trying to say that all the dinosaurs who are carnivores started out as herbivores then changed into carnivores. Now Ray, everyone knows you are an immutableist, so how about setting this guy straight. You know, why don't you just present all your evidence and convince him. He's not really a christian no matter what he claims, right? So go to it Ray, set him straight for all of us. Thanks in advance.

Isn't it interesting that someone who DENIES that naturalism (or, more specifically methodological naturalism) works, is using the results of that self-same naturalism to post on the internet. If naturalism is backed by the Father of Lies, Ray, then YOU have already been corrupted beyond saving. You're doomed, DOOMED I say! by merely using computers and the internet.

In the mean time, Ray. The only fit way to teach about the origin of the Earth, the creation of all species (including humans) is that which is contained in the Elder Edda. Since you feel SO strongly that barring sectarian instruction from schools--and especially, barring from science classrooms--surely you will join me in pressuring the schools that YOUR children go to to teach them all about the Truth(tm) of Asatru? After all, your kids don't need to be "protected" from the truth of Asatru by those unbelievers out there, right?

Have 2 creationists, say a YEC and an OEC, seriously gone after each other here on PT? Or do they always refuse to challenge anybody else who screams, "I'm a CRISSCHUNN and evolution is of the DEVIL!"

Ray wrote:

"ANYONE can claim to be a Christian. Your belief that a clerical collar automatically makes one a Christian, instead of one’s actions, says much about your impressionableness."

Actually Ray, the bible specifically states that you cannot be saved by your actions. So Ray, are you rejecting the bible? I guess you are not a real christian then. Go figure.

And of course you don't think the Pope is a real christian either. What about Pat Robertson, he committed the blasphemy of admitting that carbon dating is real and the earth is ancient. Is he a real christian Ray? Or are you the only one who is and the only one who gets to judge, regardless of what the bible says?

MichaelJ said:

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. The continuing need for and vigour of this forum is the evidence of the health and growth of ID/YEC. Its about the intellectual investigation of origin of which papers are only a minor manifestation of. ID/YEC is about great themes in origin subjects and not micro details which most papers are about. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

What have the creationists achieved this year anyone, anyone? Whilst in the science world, how many papers were published? I'm sure the people here would know more than I would. Didn't a team create a working cell from spare parts? More fossils of feathery dinosaurs. What other cool things happened this year?

harold said:

Robert Byers said: Actually that was funny. However celebrating lawyers in black robes defending a scientific theory from deadly criticism is sign of the intellectual times and that they are achanging. I predict this next year will be a further eroding and dissenting away of old man evolution. A Christmas gift to YEC old timers who fought the good fight.

The Kitzmiller trial had nothing whatsoever to do with defending the theory of evolution from criticism. In fact the trial featured lawyers (not in black robes, it took place in the US, not Canada) trying, unsuccessfully, to defend ID/creationism from deadly criticism. The trial was about an effort to teach sectarian science denial dogma as "science" in public schools. The unsurprising finding was that this effort violated the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. (Such efforts also violate Canadian human rights law.) "Evolution" wasn't on trial. ID/creationism was on trial. ID/creationism lost. Merry Kitzmas. Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays to everyone, too.

Ffrieolks, I'm unable to move comments until tomorrow. Please keep it more or less family friendly. Thanks.

Sterility indeed.

Just Bob said: Have 2 creationists, say a YEC and an OEC, seriously gone after each other here on PT? Or do they always refuse to challenge anybody else who screams, "I'm a CRISSCHUNN and evolution is of the DEVIL!"

The standard call for censorship (send him to Siberia). Yes, censorship works, Stalin proved it.

Anyone can claim to be a Christian.

— Ray Martinez

Just Bob said: Have 2 creationists, say a YEC and an OEC, seriously gone after each other here on PT? Or do they always refuse to challenge anybody else who screams, "I'm a CRISSCHUNN and evolution is of the DEVIL!"

Ray Martinez said:

SLC said: Time to send Mr. Martinez to the bathroom wall.

The standard call for censorship (send him to Siberia). Yes, censorship works, Stalin proved it.

May the good times and treasures of the present
Become the golden memories of tomorrow.
Wish you lots of love, joy and happiness.
MERRY CHRISTMAS to all...:)

Happy Anniversary Jones..:)

Science Updates

Mr. Martinez, like most morons, fails to understand...

— SLC

ID/YEC are as sciency as one can get in origin subjects.

Karen S. said:

ID/YEC are as sciency as one can get in origin subjects.

That much is true. Sciency, but not scientific

Mmm only one day's holiday for Kitzmiller v Dover, one day for the solstice and one last day for the last day. You get twelve days for a Christmas holiday.

Ray Martinez said: The Atheists, here at Pandas, approve and defend these Christians. I offer the fact above as supporting a claim that says Jones, his Pastor, and Ken Miller are NOT real Christians. Atheists, of course, would never approve of a real Christian.

Ray Martinez said: Rothschild is savagely anti-Christianity and an Atheist.

Imagine that; a ruling that says ID cannot enjoy public funding protects ID rights!

One could only wonder if our Evolutionist would feel the same way if the situation were reversed?

As for his claim that I cannot understand this claim about my rights, he is correct; please explain?

Why are the creationists all out in full force? Are they caroling or something?

FL said:

Why are the creationists all out in full force? Are they caroling or something?

Hey, we just want to wish you all a good Merry Christmas, just like Harold and Omni did. What's wrong with that?... ...other than the fact that Jesus Christ is the ultimate DISPROOF, of the worthless theory of evolution!!! FL :)

Hey, we just want to wish you all a good Merry Christmas, just like Harold and Omni did. What’s wrong with that?… …other than the fact that Jesus Christ is the ultimate DISPROOF, of the worthless theory of evolution!!!

FL said: ...other than the fact that Jesus Christ is the ultimate DISPROOF, of the worthless theory of evolution!!!

Dave Thomas said:

Ray Martinez said: The Atheists, here at Pandas, approve and defend these Christians. I offer the fact above as supporting a claim that says Jones, his Pastor, and Ken Miller are NOT real Christians. Atheists, of course, would never approve of a real Christian.

So, is this just the No True Christian Fallacy?

Actually, there have probably been many worthless theories of evolution. The one that immediately comes to mind is "incredibly fast super-evolution after the 'fall' to turn herbivores into obligate carnivores instantly." And of course the ever-popular "only a few 'kinds' were taken aboard the Ark (including dinosaurs) that turbo-evolved after the flood into all the species of today (including X-times as many species that immediately went extinct)." And then there's Lysenkoism and the 'racial purity' theories of the Nazis (still popular in some American Christian churches).

I don't think I'd call Lamarckism worthless, since it was, in a sense, half right. It recognized the fact of evolution, just making a wrong (but plausible) hypothesis about the mechanism, before Darwin identified the actual mechanism (RM + NS).

SLC said: I guess that, in the deluded mentality of Mr. Martinez, Francis Collins and David Heddle are also not Christians.

Bullshitter For Jesus Bullshitted:

Why are the creationists all out in full force? Are they caroling or something?

Hey, we just want to wish you all a good Merry Christmas, just like Harold and Omni did. What's wrong with that?... ...other than the fact that Jesus Christ is the ultimate DISPROOF, of the worthless theory of evolution!!! FL :)

apokryltaros said:

Just Bob said: Have 2 creationists, say a YEC and an OEC, seriously gone after each other here on PT? Or do they always refuse to challenge anybody else who screams, "I'm a CRISSCHUNN and evolution is of the DEVIL!"

The latter, always the latter. Like on this thread, Ray Martinez deems Robert Byers too irrelevant to be worth mentioning, and Robert Byers is too stupid brain damaged to care/notice.

FL said:

Why are the creationists all out in full force? Are they caroling or something?

Hey, we just want to wish you all a good Merry Christmas, just like Harold and Omni did. What's wrong with that?... ...other than the fact that Jesus Christ is the ultimate DISPROOF, of the worthless theory of evolution!!! FL :)

Jesus is the reason for the season

And there are strong reasons to think that the historical Jesus was NOT born anywhere near December 25, or in the year 1 'AD' (CE).

Just Bob said: And there are strong reasons to think that the historical Jesus was NOT born anywhere near December 25, or in the year 1 'AD' (CE).

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Just Bob said: Have 2 creationists, say a YEC and an OEC, seriously gone after each other here on PT? Or do they always refuse to challenge anybody else who screams, "I'm a CRISSCHUNN and evolution is of the DEVIL!"

The latter, always the latter. Like on this thread, Ray Martinez deems Robert Byers too irrelevant to be worth mentioning, and Robert Byers is too stupid brain damaged to care/notice.

I've never had an exchange with Robert Byers. But for the record: the man you refer to as "brain damaged" accepts the main cause-and-effect claim of Darwinism (natural selection/microevolution) like all Atheists. In other words, the YEC Fundy is in YOUR bed, not mine, Thank God. There is no evidence supporting the existence of natural causation, microevolution or speciation. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-anti-selectionist/species immutabilist; Obama Democrat)

harold said:

Jesus is the reason for the season

As a Christian atheist who enjoys Christmas and calls it that (I also say "Happy Holidays", of course, to include everyone), I do have to point out that the timing of this particular holiday is about the winter solstice.

There was quite a dispute in early Christianity about whether the birth of Christ was December 25 or January 6. Was this because no one could remember? Or could it be simply because early Christians were unsure whether to synchronize it with the birth of Mithras or with the birth of Aion, both of whom were different representations of the perennial Mystery godman? These dates were not arbitrarily chosen. Both were once the dates of the winter solstice, the shortest day, which signals the turning point of the year and the returning of the life-giving sun. Due to the precession of the equinoxes this date changes slightly over time. So, although the solstice moved progressively from January 6 to December 25, some traditions continued to celebrate it on the familiar night. Today it falls around December 22. The annual celebration of the nativity of the Mystery godman celebrated the death of the old year and its miraculous rebirth as the new year on the date of the solstice. Osiris-Dionysus represented and was represented by the sun, as was Jesus, whom the Church father Clement of Alexander calls "The Sun of Righteousness." By way of balance, Dionysus' virgin mother Semele derives her name from the virgin moon goddess Selene. The angel Gabriel who comes to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus was likewise equated with the moon.

Doesn’t also the uncertainty about the date of such a celebrated historical event as the birth of Jesus make us suspect it never happened?

Most ancient records, if records they be, are as problematic, or worse. For example, no record exists of Alexander the Great that was written in his own lifetime or near to it. The nearest annals date from thirty years or more after his death and consist merely of the mention of his name. All other sources are secondary, and date from long afterwards. They claim earlier sources, and there are even a few fragmentary quotes from them - Arrian gives a few words from Callisthenes, for example - but we mostly rely simply on their word that these sources existed.

Only very few ancient historical figures have better attestation. Writers who left their own words, certainly, like Julius Caesar or Aristotle, but they are very much in the minority. To write ancient history at all, it is usually necessary to rely on third and fourth hand accounts written long afterwards, and all of these are subject to criticism for bias. Somewhat as the Gospels are, in fact.

Dave Luckett said: ...subject to criticism for bias. Somewhat as the Gospels are, in fact.

Well, maybe. But that's inseparable from the fact that our sources on Alexander are unequivocably secondary sources. No historian is free from bias, and the question of how much they had invested in their presentation is a perennial chestnut.

On Alexander, the words remaining to us were written by writers who were working with an inbuilt series of personal biases that are just as real as the biases of the Evangelists, if more insidious, with the added rider that we can only construct those biases from the words they wrote, rather than infer them, as you have done, from the writers' avowed purpose. Arrian, for example, used Ptolemy, who admired Alexander, and Callisthenes, whose writings were straightforwardly sycophantic, although he changed his mind over the proskynesis business, upbraided Alexander, and was executed for it. But we only know these are his sources because Arrian, unlike most ancient historians, was good enough to state them.

Some of the New Testament sources originate closer to their subject than that, both in time and in transmission. Paul's first letters date from not more than twenty years after the crucifixion, well within living memory, and there's no reason to doubt his statement that he knew and spoke with eyewitnesses. John's gospel and letters were undoubtedly redacted by his followers, but there is apparently eyewitness testimony in them, although teasing it out is the subject of some controversy. The Nag Hammadi hoard provided a page of sayings of Jesus that appears to antedate the Gospels.

And the question, with respect, was not what our interpretation of Jesus should be, but whether he existed at all.

I think he did exist. That is, I think there is enough evidence to say that there was a Galilean nabi by the name of Yeshua bin Yussuf, who probably said a good deal of what he is credited with in the Gospels, and who was executed by the Romans about 37 CE, tellingly in the manner used by them for rebels and revolted slaves. More than that I think is speculation, but that much is reasonable, on the available evidence.

No quibbles. I bow before your erudition.

But I still see the gospels as pretty much selling jobs, all the way through: selling Jews on the idea that Jesus was the messiah; selling various early christian groups on the idea that MY christian ideals and practices are the correct ones (not that other guy's); and eventually selling the idea that no matter how badly we're treated now, VERY SOON Jesus will come back and reward us, and punish all the non- (or incorrect) believers, so stick with us real tight.

They can be read that way, sure. They can be read in a number of different ways, all perfectly supportable from the text. They're complex texts, and all complex texts are polythemic and polysemic.

FWIW, I don't think they were much interested in selling the idea to Jews that Jesus was the Messiah - Matthew is the possible exception, but even so, the content is difficult to square with that idea. I think they wanted to sell the idea to gentiles that it was Jews who rejected Jesus, and the Sanhedrin that caused his death - not the Roman governor, who tried to save him. Jesus wasn't a rebel against Rome, dear me, no.

That is, the church was disassociating itself from Judaism, because Judaism was very much on the nose after 66 CE. John, particularly, had gone beyond the Messiah idea and was heading towards the God Incarnate one, a notion completely repugnant to a Jewish sensibility, but which fitted nicely with the sons of gods and anthropomorphised gods of pagan mythology.

The synoptics were selling the notion that Jesus would return soon, pretty clearly, but John sang quite a different tune, see John 21:21-23. And even the synoptics didn't have anything much to say about contemporary church leadership or practices, except that they depicted the original disciples as quarrelsome and pretty dim. One might make out from this that they supported Pauline apostleship; but by 70 CE Pauline Christianity was all that was left anyway, the Jerusalem Church and Jewish Christianity (if it had ever gotten much off the ground) being smoking rubble by then, so the point seems moot.

Dave Luckett said: ...by 70 CE Pauline Christianity was all that was left anyway, the Jerusalem Church and Jewish Christianity (if it had ever gotten much off the ground) being smoking rubble by then, so the point seems moot.

As my old classics prof used to say, "Well, it's an interpretation."

Merry Christmas, and if that offends you,

Hypothesis: the carefully observed and rationally considered evidence should demonstrate a heightened level of seratonin and a measurable improvement in mood over the next few days. More research into this phenomenon should now be undertaken.

Me, I prefer the former, but DSFDF.

Dave Luckett said: Well, maybe. But that's inseparable from the fact that our sources on Alexander are unequivocably secondary sources. No historian is free from bias, and the question of how much they had invested in their presentation is a perennial chestnut. On Alexander, the words remaining to us were written by writers who were working with an inbuilt series of personal biases that are just as real as the biases of the Evangelists, if more insidious, with the added rider that we can only construct those biases from the words they wrote, rather than infer them, as you have done, from the writers' avowed purpose. Arrian, for example, used Ptolemy, who admired Alexander, and Callisthenes, whose writings were straightforwardly sycophantic, although he changed his mind over the proskynesis business, upbraided Alexander, and was executed for it. But we only know these are his sources because Arrian, unlike most ancient historians, was good enough to state them. Some of the New Testament sources originate closer to their subject than that, both in time and in transmission. Paul's first letters date from not more than twenty years after the crucifixion, well within living memory, and there's no reason to doubt his statement that he knew and spoke with eyewitnesses. John's gospel and letters were undoubtedly redacted by his followers, but there is apparently eyewitness testimony in them, although teasing it out is the subject of some controversy. The Nag Hammadi hoard provided a page of sayings of Jesus that appears to antedate the Gospels. And the question, with respect, was not what our interpretation of Jesus should be, but whether he existed at all. I think he did exist. That is, I think there is enough evidence to say that there was a Galilean nabi by the name of Yeshua bin Yussuf, who probably said a good deal of what he is credited with in the Gospels, and who was executed by the Romans about 37 CE, tellingly in the manner used by them for rebels and revolted slaves. More than that I think is speculation, but that much is reasonable, on the available evidence.