Good News in Florida
According to the Orlando Sentinel for the first time, Florida public school children will explicitly learn about evolution:
Florida has written new standards for teaching science that for the first time say public-school students need to learn about evolution.
The proposed science standards, released Friday, call evolution one of the “big ideas” that must be taught as part of in-depth, hands-on learning.
Florida’s plan is part of a larger push to improve science education but could set off a battle over beliefs.
Current standards do not use the word evolution — long a controversial word in education — but do require teaching evolutionary concepts in public schools.
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute in a 2005 report gave Florida an F for its current science standards, calling them “sorely lacking in content,” “thin” and “nebulous.” In particular, it criticized the “superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology.”
The public has 60 days to comment on the changes. Then they go to the State Board of Education as early as January for approval.
It’s not hard to imagine the kinds of comments that will be forthcoming from the RR in FL. I don’t know if I give this proposal even a 50/50 chance…but it’s a good start in the correct direction.
For sure C.T. .
Congratulations to the State of Florida in accepting the fact that in order to have strong public schools, one of the first steps is to have strong, well written, and well utilized state education standards. In addition, by having strong, well written, and academically honest science standards, the state will be providing its public school science teachers with the important cover that they need when confronting creationist wackos. If any of these wackos approach their children’s science teachers or school administrators and state their objections to the theory of evolution, all that the teachers and administrators have to say is that evolution is part of the state’s teaching standards and that by law these standards must be taught.
Here is a link to the Fordham Foundation’s latest report on the science standards for all 50 states, so that anyone can read this evalutation for the state where they live.
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=352
Fortunately my home state has excellent science standards. Now where the fight must be waged is in the classrooms to make sure that the public school science teachers are teaching to these standards and are not 1) bowing to pressure from Christian fundamentalist freakazoids, or 2) pushing their own religious agendas.
From the Orlando Sentinel article linked to above:
When, oh when, are these people who write these articles ever going to learn accuracy in reporting facts? The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of life.
Tony,
You are perhaps the only person at DefCon who has ever clearly stated that the theory of evolution has “absolutely nothing whatsoever” to do with the origins of life. I concur.
Mark,
I have constantly and consistantly reiterated, along with many others here, that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.
The study of the of the beginning of life is called abiogenesis. Get real, Mark.
evolutionary biology
Mark, I have also stated that evolutionary biology has nothing to do with the act of creation.
evolutionary biology also does not address the study of astronomy.
IN FACT, to be totally honesty creationist and evolutionist agree on the overwhelming finds of evolutionary biology.
The main disagreement is the creationist understanding that species’ reproduce ONLY their own KIND.
bill must have learned his evolution in Florida, where it’s teaching get’s an “F.”
No substance, no contend, nothing of value or importance. Once again dale’s comments exposes that they are nothing more then empty bravado,
Creationist and Evolutionist agree with ALL of the evidence involving observable changes.
Small observable changes which include, (natural selection, speciation, and adaptation)
Creationist and Evolutionist disagree with unobservable changes. For example, (molecules-to-man evolution).
Textbooks present evolution in two different ways–small, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution).
If the Florida textbooks show evidence for observable changes and then conclude that this proves that the unobservable changes took place as well, them that asummtion would be based on bad science.
…and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution).
Would this be any different than the dust to man creation account in Genesis?
Tony, you’re not suppose to be talking to me Good=bye.
If you show evidence for observable changes and then conclude that this proves that the unobservable changes took place as well, them your asummtion would be based on bad science.
Dale,
God created from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7)
God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground (Genesis 2:9)
God formed out of the ground all the beast of the field and all the birds of the air (Genesis 2:19)
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of man and he brought her to the man (Genesis 2:22)
If some woman ever tells you that you’re ” lower than dirt” just tell her thats not what the Bible says.
God formed out of the ground all the beast of the field and all the birds of the air (Genesis 2:19)
Mark, that sounds alot like molecules-to-mammals evolution!
…the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7 NIV)
See, it says right there in the Bible that molecules-to-man evolution happened!
OK.
We all agree. Tony and Mark are my two favorite people.(for this short duration) The Ying and the Yang.
Perfection personified.
These exchanges are the epitomy of the excahange of ideas.
You may notice that fundamentalist christians work all the time to stifle creative thinking and science.
One does not have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see that YECs are motivated to the max. That is remarkable!
Praise their misguided tenacity.
The study of human nature will take us all beyond the tipico salient observations that we discuss here.
We are living in exponential times.
If you do not want to hitch your wagon to the modern world, Do not watch this.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-VaCMqGD20
Biblical fundamentalists are going down the tubes of reason.
The population of the world will soon prevail on all of us.
Did you know? Or, do you not want to know?
We are living in exponential times…….
You can live in your goat dung hut, or you can use your sensibilities to try to improve our existence within all of the inhabitants of our great planet.
We are training our kids for careers that do not yet exist.
Shift will happen, as will shit happen.
It does seem that the common consensus pointe to spontaneous life—Ex Nihilio.
Sine nobody knows, that would be a philosophical expnation.l. Ok Not much substqance though.
Tony,
The one thing that “molecules to mammals evolution” cannot explain is th essence of life. How is it that we have life?
I think, therefore - I am. Why isn’t that good enough?
C.T. Says:
I think, therefore - I am. Why isn’t that good enough?
***
I think, therefore - God is the great I am.
CT, Why isn’t that good enough?
Proverbs 21
1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD;
He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases.
Regarding the question of life…even if there is a God and he/she causes the essence of life, I am very curious how it works. Science may help lead us there. The bible does not. It just says God did it.
I want to know more.
I like science.
I yam what I yam.
-Popeye
Biologists know that genetic changes within a species may ultimately lead to a new species. There is nothing mysterious about that.
If you introduce a bunch of frogs to a remote island, and wait awhile, you might eventually return to find a new species of frog.
Is specie the singular form of species?
Proverb5.5521
1 The king’s schlong is in the hand of the LORD;
He directs its watercourse wherever He pleases.
There is not one scintilla of evidence for the existence of a god. None.
Just because superstitious people like to attribute life to a god does not make it so. It’s just an irrational belief.
There are new transitional fossils being found all the time. There is no difference between macro and micro evolution.
What the creationists call micro evolution is merely evolution over a short period of time.
There is no evidence for any other mechanisms at work.
Talk all you want. You can’t make evolution go away, sucka.
Don, yes, “specie” is the singular form of “species”, but it is rarely used.
The one thing that “molecules to mammals evolution” cannot explain is the essence of life. How is it that we have life?
Mark, that is very much a philosophical question; I think that all of us probably have different answers, and those answers are the summation of our internal moral compass, education, upbringing, experiences, and acquaintances. I personally believe that it is our intelligence and the God-given gift of our soul that defines the essence of what it is to be human. I also freely accept that others may believe otherwise and that they have their own very valid reasons for doing so. The development of humanity’s brain size and reasoning abilities are biologically and evolutionarily-driven, but I believe that what we as a species choose to do with that intelligence is something a little bit more.
I have never advocated using science as a weapon against belief in God. However, I seriously doubt that God has anything to fear from human intelligence, and I never saw any particular scientific endeavor, achievement, discovery, or theory as a threat to my faith. I simply believe that science and faith/philosophy/reason ask questions from differing frames of reference.
I also have absolutely no problem in accepting the theory of evolution as providing us with the best explanation for how the natural, biological world works and for explaining the vast diversity of life. I’ve posted this before, and do so again because I feel it is so appropriate: this is the final sentence from Charles Darwin’s masterpiece The Origin of Species.
There is not one scintilla of evidence for the existence of a god. None.
You are absolutely correct, Dale. I could not present any physical or scientific evidence for God that could be independently verified according to the established scientific methodology.
Just because superstitious people like to attribute life to a god does not make it so. It’s just an irrational belief.
Count me among the irrational!
Repeat after me:
A species (”kind” in the language of our under-educated troll, bill) is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring.
When a species (”kind” in the words of the ignorant troll) is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the selection of novel traits cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species. Wiki
“Someone” should try to educate himself rather than listen to the crackpottery of Ken Ham.
“Someone” needs to take a course in logic. One does not have to be a scientist to see when someone is making irrational and/or illogical statements.
One must be very deluded to think that the millions of pages of data and millions of observations that show beyond a doubt that the earth is very old and evolution is occuring, is “made up” by all these scientists that are in “cahoots” needs to think again. All that versus no evidence for intelligent design/ creationism. Very deluded indeed.
Thanks, Tony. I was exactly in your shoes at one point.
Once again, Tony, it is a pleasure you read your opinions and reaasuring that there are, in fact, among those who’s world-view is religiously orientated, individuals like yourself, who can contribute balance and civility to the discussions we attempt to undertake at this site — an rational irrationalist, if you will.
…an rational irrationalist, if you will.
I like that one! Thanks C.T.
One thing that I would clarify is that my overall world-view is not overwhelmingly religious-orientated. My faith is simply one part of a whole bunch of different experiences that form my current world view. I also adjust my world view as I interact with others and learn new things.
Ben Stein was on O’rielly. He states that:
“ID is an effort to fill in the gaps, and is a sincere effort to add new knowledge to the theory.”
That is absolute bullsit. All the books written by the creationist fundies just attack and whine about evolution. None of them provide any useful information or suggestions. IDists or creationist have provided no evidence to support their belief. Then they say it is a free speech issue when nobody has restricted their free speech. They are on TV movies and books constantly. What they are really trying to say is that nobody should speak out against their crackpot beliefs.
The Discovery Institute is constantly blathering about the research they are conducting, yet they have not provided one bit of actual research.
Thanks, Tony. Very much appreciated. You continue to be a great source of information and express yourself in a most articulate manner.
Thanks for the Fordham study, Tony.
My home state, Arkansas tests out at a “D”.
Next-door,OKLahoma gets an “F” , as does, Mississippi.
Interestingly, Louisiana, home state of CREATIONIST governor-elect, Jingoistic Jindal, gets a ‘B”.( gotta be grading on the curve there!)
The NATURE of the Universe is that it is OBSERVABLE.
The NATURE of the Universe is that constituent parts have evolved that are capable of making OBSERVATIONS.
THAT is the ESSENCE of LIFE.
That is “how it is that we have life’.
Strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electro-magnetism and gravity go A LONG way to explaining the HOW( together with newer discovries sucha s ‘dark matter’ and “dark energy”.)
Earthlings may posture and postulate that THEIR PARTICULAR religious, philosophical answer to the “WHY” is THE or among THE correct ones, but such postulates are NO MORE SUBSTANTIVE to explaining ANYTHING than is a single electron in a dead skin cell I sloughed off while sleeping capable of explaining “infinity”.
Dale reported that Ben Stein was on Bill O’Reilly’s show. Since I am not a regular viewer, I missed that segment. However, here is a link to PZ Myers’ Pharyngula science blog that has the video.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/two_people_vying_to_outstupid.php
I watched it, and it was simply awlful to watch as these two idiots totally butched not just what the theory of evolution is, but also (I’m sure to the great dismay of the spin-doctors at the Discovery Institute) continually equate the unsupported hypothesis/opinion of Intelligent Design to biblical creationism. These yahoos were actually advocating to have theologians give educational instruction in biology classes. Well, if your going to advocate that, then you are going to have to give equal time to all religions (including those you disagree with).
No wonder this country’s science education is going down the crapper. I guess that, as an engineer, I’d better start learning to speak Chinese or Hindi, because that is where our high-tech industries may be heading.
Thanks for the link to Bill and Ben, Tony. A couple of observations:
Stein says “maybe we’re wrong (the IDists), maybe we’re stupid…” — I can’t disagree with that….in fact, he may be correct.
O’Reilly says he can’t understand why a BIOLOGY teacher can’t “mention” the fact that some THEOLOGIANS “believe” that there may be a creator. — I think everyone here can understand why that statement is asinine.
Stein says that at least IDism is attempting to fill Darwinian gaps. — I say, well then, fill the gaps with science, not mythology.
Well said all,
The way science is practiced has served us very well. Scientists have taken us from the dark ages to where we are.
So why would we pay any attention to religious nut cases that want to change the way science is taught?
They constantly try to cast doubt on science because it is getting close to proving their god is a myth.
Biology, geology, and astronomy show the earth and universe is very old, disproving the literal interpretation of the bible.
Hey, Yah…did you notice that the states with the highest “A’s” are California and Virginia? In fact, I think Virginia may be the only Southern state that gets an “A” (of course, Virginia has had a tendency for producing quite a few of our nation’s greatest thinkers, such as Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Wilson, etc.)
Heeeeeer’s your fundagelical candidate for president, Mike Huckabee, as endorsed by Chuck Norris:
“Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do. In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don’t think there’s a conflict between the two. But if there’s going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn’t. So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict.” –Salon
So if he is elected and affirms to preserve and protect the constitution, and there is a conflict with the bible, which there will be, bingo, instant theocracy.
Link to the Salon page.
Yahweh,
I’m sorry that your home state of Arkansas did poorly. I was very surprised to learn when this report was first published that my home state of Indiana received an “A” in not just its science standards, but also in its mathematics, english, US history, and World history education standards. Several years ago, there was a strong push made by some very strong-willed and enlightened politicians to completely re-vamp Indiana’s state standards.
From the Fordham summary on Indiana (emphasis mine):
So nice to see my state occassionally get something right. I also liked how the theory of evolution was addressed:
Really makes me glad to read that! Of course this caveat was added at the very end.
Fortunately, the religious fundamentalist wack-job who was proposing this legislation was forced to back down (by his own admission) as a result of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. He did introduce an extremely watered down bill that was never even voted on in committee. Since then, this clown has crawled back under his rock and his precious GOP party lost control of the Indiana State House last election.
Don Rettmann Says:
Regarding the question of life…even if there is a God and he/she causes the essence of life, I am very curious how it works. Science may help lead us there. The bible does not. It just says God did it.
I want to know more. I like science.
+++++++++++++++++++
I also want to know more about HOW GOD did it, and I also like science.
Anyone who claims that science prove there is no God is not very knowledgeable of science.
once again attacking the person not the issues October 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 am
ha ha made you look. lol
FACT, to be totally honesty creationist and evolutionist agree on the overwhelming findings of evolutionary biology.
The main disagreement is the creationist understanding that species’ reproduce ONLY their own KIND.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
dale Says:
Thanks, Tony. I was exactly in your shoes at one point.
dale, once again, I’m very sorry that your faith was so weak and so easily lost.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
Dr David Pilbeam, of the Boston Natural History Museum, has considerable expertise in palaeoanthropology (the study of fossil man). He came to the attention of the scientific community as being an objective scientist when he wrote an article for Human Nature magazine, June 1978, entitled, ‘Rearranging Our Family Tree’.
In that article he reported that discoveries since 1976 had shaken his view of human origins and forced a change in ideas of man’s early ancestors. Dr Pilbeam’s previous views were wrong about tool use replacing canine teeth, evidence for which was totally lacking. He did not believe any longer that he was likely to hit upon the true or correct story of the origin of man. He repeated a number of times that our theories have clearly reflected our current …
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
Why had he changed his position on human origins?
He said it was not due to the discovery of only one particular specimen, but the recovery of various materials made him realize that his previous statements, which had been made so adamantly, were really based on very little evidence. Because they were based on so little evidence, he began to wonder why he had held them so strongly. It made him…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
Dr Pilbeam said there were two ways to look at evolutionary theory: the punctuated way and the gradual way. Before the punctuated equilibria theory came along, scientists said emphatically there was only one way. Dr Pilbeam thought it would be very difficult to tell for most mammal groups which alternative was correct, but he thought that some people who disagreed with punctuated equilibria theory did so on philosophical rather than empirical grounds. He emphasized that this was why he had…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
…anti-creationist palaeontologist Michael Archer is still insisting that evolutionary transition is adequately documented in the fossils. The ‘best of the best’ in the evolutionary fossil camp claim otherwise, in their own words.
Are there any transitional fossils?
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
+++++++++++++
Not One, “example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.”
Are there any transitional fossils?
Are there any transitional fossils?
Are there any transitional fossils?
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.
Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:
‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said,
…You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record.
So much for absolute prove of transitional fossils.
please notice that my comments are addressing the issues not attack the person.
if you don’t believe in the Christian God , then why are you so made at Him???
Tony,
Thanks for the clear evaluation. Very much appreciated.
I am sad to report that my state, PA, recieved a “C.”
However, I have scutinized all of my kid’s textbooks over the years to see how they treat evolution, biology , history, etc, and I am very happy with the way the subjects have been represented and taught.
My son brought home a brand new biology textbook last year and I was all over that baby.
I also compared it to my own college 101 textbook and I found that These kids are far beyond what I learned.
That makes me very happy.
I now have four kids out there dong their thing. Happy and healthy all, and I am happy to report (by the way, to be facietious lest some would try to convict me on this) none of them borrow money from me.
Having said that, The education that my kids have and are recieving according to the state has only formed a basis, a good mechanical backgound, from which to expand upon.
There is no way I want to have teachers interrupt my kid’s primary education by throwing is controversies, whatever they are. I will do that at home where I know if they are ready for it or NOT>
However it happened, I think that early educators thought about what age a student should be taught certain topics.
It ended up that once a kid reachers seventeen- eighteen, his parents are ready to let him go and check out the world.
Major controversies about anything should not be taught in K-12 in public schools.
These are kids. Teach them the basics in school. They can be suitably brainwashed in their parents irrational belief systems at home on Sunday church, Wed bible study, Sat Youth group, etc. and all the admonishments about how masturbation will kill you, scientists are dishonest and all the other bullshit you wanna do, but you will never get it taught as science in the public schools. Go away.
Oops, I let that post go without editing…. damn…. my spelling is atrocious!
One can’t be mad at something that doesn’t exist.
Below is from a very interesting page from Michigan State University:
Here we have a comprehensive collection dealing with the history of hominid fossil finds throughout the world, starting with A. ramidus, dating to approximately 4.4 million years before present, and ending with modern day H. sapiens.
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/index.htm
As you will see, there are only fragments of fossil specimens to cover over four million years of evolution.
Expecting anyone to provide a definitive transitional fossil is like the proverbial needle in a haystack, only in this case, like finding a needle in all the haystacks in Kansas and Nebraska. Short of a time machine that can carry a video camera back four million years, we can only work with what we find. But when you look at the scientific evidence that we DO have, we get a certain set of dots that we can begin to connect and which starts to draw a picture that looks a lot like the evolutionary principals set down by Darwin.
Bottom line- as long as the head of a billion member, world-wide religious organization dictates that the Bible is a literal explanation of the origin of species (and many from another billion protestants follow the same dictum, not to mention many of the billion Muslims) there is going to be friction in education. Creationists are desperate to dispute science because it shakes the very foundations of their faith. Oh well. Get over it.
I can’t help but laugh - “As you will see, there are only fragments of fossil specimens to cover four million years of evolution.
On several occassions “fragments” have been proven only to be bones from contemporary animals.
I’m sure there have been some people claiming to have something that later proves to not be authentic. That’s not what I’m talking about Marj. If you have a link to a site that can conclusively prove that the bones referred to by Michigan State University are in fact “contemporary animals” and not hominid fossils, I’d be happey to check the link you provide. And be sure to forward that info to MSU…I’m sure they’ll be glad to update their records.
And wipe that silly smile off your face.
The troll continues to post references to AIG on every single question. No organization in the world has been more soundly refuted than AIG. There is no scientific basis for any of the crackpot idiocy posted on that site.
Answers in Genesis has no basis in real science whatsoever. Remember, Ken Ham and his sychophants believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.
By the way, Luther Sunderland is a liar for the creationists.
“Niles Eldredge, in The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (1982, Washington Square Press, pp. 130-131) writes regarding the ICR’s Gary Parker and Luther Sunderland:
The ICR’s Gary Parker has been among the more blatant offenders [in distorting the words of scientists]. On page 95 of his Creation: The Facts of Life, we read: “Famous paleontologists at Harvard, the American Museum, and even the British Museum say we have not a single example of evolutionary transition at all.” This is untrue. A prominent creationist [Sunderland] interviewed a number of paleontologists at those institutions and elsewhere (actually, he never did get to Harvard). I was one of them. Some of us candidly admitted that there are some procedural difficulties in recognizing ancestors and that, yes, the fossil record is rather full of gaps. Nothing new there. This creationist then wrote letters to various newspapers, and even testified at hearings that the paleontologists he interviewed “admitted” that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Thus, the lie has been perpetuated by Parker. All of the paleontologists interviewed have told me that they did cite examples of intermediates to the interviewer. The statement is an outright distortion of the willing admission by paleontologists concerned with accuracy, that, to be sure, there are gaps in the fossil record. Such is creationist “scholarship.” ”
Blatant quote mining and lying. More of the same.
With all due respect, I really doubt that bill realises how much these guys lie. Of course he wants to trust those that support his belief system, but but he needs to remember that while we must respect our authority figures, is it ok to question them.
dale Says:
The troll continues to post references to AIG on every single question.
Not true, “every” is a very big word.
CT quoted, “…when you look at the scientific evidence that we DO have, we get a certain set of dots that we can begin to connect and which starts to draw a picture that looks a lot like the evolutionary principals set down by Darwin.”
“…we get a certain set of dots”???????
CT, your post identifies the problem with the teachings of evolutionism.
Evolutionist can’t help but connect the dots, which by the way don’t come with the numbers, to achieve the outcome they are looking for. It’s not because they are bad people its just once people find what they are looking for they stopping looking. That’s bad science.
Dale,
Nice job on your October 24, 3:08 PM post. I also had read that AiG article and had done some poking around regarding the claims that the article’s author made, and discovered that this LfJ (Liar for Jesus) did quite a bit of quote-mining and completely misrepresented what some of these museum curators and scientists actually said. This is just more of the same standard operating procedures carried out by these charlatans.
In addition, I noted that the AiG article was published in September of 1992, which is over 15 years ago! Evolutionary science has progressed tremendously since then; to include the discovery of many new transitional fossils and the completion of the Human Genome Project. This silly little article even makes reference to the old Punctuated Equilibria hypothesis, which was invalidated years ago.
Nothing written by all those LfJ over at AiG can be trusted.
Tony,
The main problem with some creationists is that they find them in a trusted position and they abuse it.
They are preaching to the proverbial choir, and we all know the choir will believe anything the leader says because he is a man of god and he wouldn’t steer them wrong.
But they do lie, and lie often. They no full well when they are quote mining and/ or outright misrepresenting someone.
It is absolutely pathetic. Then there are people that are running their lives based of lies.
Re: Your reference to Darwin. Yes, if Darwin could come back, he would not recognize what he merely started.
It would be like a nomad who built the first animal skin shelter and comes back to see the Burj Bubai.
Sorry, the “Burj Dubai.”
Dale, regarding your 6:25 PM post:
I don’t know if you read Chris Hedges’ book American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America, but he had a chapter titled The War on Truth that discussed the dangers of creationism and how those dangers go far beyond attacking one scientific theory in biology.
Couple this statement with the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith that all of its employees must agree to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
These affirmations include that “[t]he scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ” and that “[n]o apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.“
Enough said.
I forgot - that quote from Chris Hedges book may be found on pages 115-116.
Tony,
Thanks. I do need to get that book.
That is absolutely chilling to read that account. Great comment.
Tony - I think the creationists are getting too much credit. I don’t believe they are that smart. In fact, I think they are simpletons, who would rather tow the line of Christian dogma then ask and try to answer the difficult questions. Like the Flat Earth Society, they are destined to the dust-bin of antiquated fools.
Tony, the line from Hedges’ book “And once the totalitarians are in powere, facts are ruthlessly manipulated or kept hidden to support the lie”, is so very relevant to what is going on now in the reign of President Shitforbrains.
Two examples are the attempts by a Shitforbrains asskisser who worked at NASA to alter scientists’ data about global warming, and the recent revelation that NASA discontinued a study about aviation safety because it was concerned that release of the findings to the public would be devastating to airlines’ profits.
The totalitarians ARE in power. They have been since President Shitforbrains was inaugurated in January 2001.
Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
Tony - I think the creationists are getting too much credit. I don’t believe they are that smart. In fact, I think they are simpletons, who would rather tow the line of Christian dogma then ask and try to answer the difficult questions.
C.T., I would conditionally agree with you; the rank-and-file creationists are willfully ignorant and outright obtuse in their collective stupidity and adherance to this dogma. However, do not hold any illusions that this simple-mindset applies to its leadership. Creationist leaders such as Ken Ham know exactly what they are doing and run their so-called “ministries” with the same efficiency, organization, and ruthlessness as the old Chicago democratic machine under the first Mayor Daley.
No doubt, Tony, no doubt. My guess is, at some point, Ken Ham is going to mess up with the accounting at the museum and will go down for tax evasion. Watching all the nitwits flock through the turnstiles must make him giddy. Yet one after another, these types fall prey to the temptations of greed and selfishness and fall by the wayside. It’s probably safe to say, Ham’s time approacheth.
“Religion is a means of exploitation employed by the strong against the weak; religion is a cloak of ambition, injustice and vice . . . . Then truth breaks free, science is popularized, and religion totters; soon it will fall, in the course of centuries–that is, tomorrow. . . . In good time we shall only have to deal with reason.” (c1875)
– Georges Bizet, from Bizet, by William Dean. Colier Books, 1962
Unfortunately, dale…we are still, for the most part, waiting. Which will come first - reason or Jesus? I think the line is 2-1 for reason and Jesus is the long-shot.
“Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”- Ephesians 5:19-20
More Proverbs of Solomon
1 These are more proverbs of Solomon, copied by the men of Hezekiah king of Judah:
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
3 As the heavens are high and the earth is deep,
so the hearts of kings are unsearchable.
4 Remove the dross from the silver,
and out comes material for [a] the silversmith;
5 remove the wicked from the king’s presence,
and his throne will be established through righteousness.
6 Do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence,
and do not claim a place among great men;
7 it is better for him to say to you, “Come up here,”
than for him to humiliate you before a nobleman.
What you have seen with your eyes
8 do not bring [b] hastily to court,
for what will you do in the end
if your neighbor puts you to shame?
9 If you argue your case with a neighbor,
do not betray another man’s confidence,
10 or he who hears it may shame you
and you will never lose your bad reputation.
11 A word aptly spoken
is like apples of gold in settings of silver.
12 Like an earring of gold or an ornament of fine gold
is a wise man’s rebuke to a listening ear.
13 Like the coolness of snow at harvest time
is a trustworthy messenger to those who send him;
he refreshes the spirit of his masters.
14 Like clouds and wind without rain
is a man who boasts of gifts he does not give.
15 Through patience a ruler can be persuaded,
and a gentle tongue can break a bone.
16 If you find honey, eat just enough—
too much of it, and you will vomit.
17 Seldom set foot in your neighbor’s house—
too much of you, and he will hate you.
18 Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow
is the man who gives false testimony against his neighbor.
19 Like a bad tooth or a lame foot
is reliance on the unfaithful in times of trouble.
20 Like one who takes away a garment on a cold day,
or like vinegar poured on soda,
is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.
21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.
23 As a north wind brings rain,
so a sly tongue brings angry looks.
24 Better to live on a corner of the roof
than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.
25 Like cold water to a weary soul
is good news from a distant land.
26 Like a muddied spring or a polluted well
is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked.
27 It is not good to eat too much honey,
nor is it honorable to seek one’s own honor.
28 Like a city whose walls are broken down
is a man who lacks self-control.
bad news in CA.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/193857main_wildfire_oct22_full.jpg
16 If you find honey, eat just enough—
too much of it, and you will vomit.
think about it, bill.
Scroll…
17 Seldom set foot in your neighbor’s house—
too much of you, and he will hate you.
maybe your right ct
maybe I am, bill….maybe I am.
Tony, I’m a little late in the discussion, but thanks for posting Fordham’s evaluation of the state’s education standards. It is always eye-opening…and a little disturbing.
Nah, I don’t think so. he he he
dale, thanks for link
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=e10543891fd2e7277d15
smug turd
yes you are.
You’re like the goofy kid that says, “I know you are but what am I” to whatever is said to him.
You’re a cartoon. A poorly drawn cartoon that should have been cancelled after it’s first publication.
“I know you are but what am I”, he he he
Like I said…..
Ct are you trying to be the last one to post on each thread. ha ha
only so you don’t.
If bill were a cartoon character, which would he be?
I can’t think of any cartoon characters who are as nutty as bill.
Wimpy
Yes!
Thanks, C.T.
C.T. Says:
Fundie Xtians are fun to ignore.
LOL, how would you know?
oh man I’m still laughing at CT over that one. LOL
try it, you’ll like it….wimpy
HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? …L@L
you so funny, bill.
Why should I try it, YOU CAN’T EVEN IGNORE ME.
I also can’t ignore the fact that shit stinks.