Chick Dissection | It’s Coming

(In more ways than one, baby, yeah.)

Ever hear the story of Noah’s Ark? Want to hear a middle-aged asshole spout a rendition involving man and dinosaur co-existing and a huge magical sphere of water that lets people live to be 900-years-old in an attempt to try to turn you from your sinner ways? Actually, you know what? Screw the rest of the introduction; “man and dinosaur co-existing” is introduction enough.


A torrent of God spooge.

Commentary:

Okay, who the hell reacts like this guy does when someone mentions the weather? “Man, this storm is really bad!” “Well, it’s definitely not as bad as this one that there was in the bible! No, sir!” Most I get from people is along the lines of “Well, back in seventy-two, it rained so hard that your grandmother and I had to reinforce the roof… blah blah blah.”

Commentary:

“Oh, you and that crazy flood!” Hah. “Hobbies: Noah’s Flood.” Junior year of high school, I had this teacher who just wouldn’t shut up about trains. I’m sure you all know someone like this… they have this hobby and they kinda bring it up at every possible opportunity. Can you imagine someone who did that with “Noah’s flood”? “Man, I sure could use a drink of water.” “You know where there was a lot of water? Noah’s flood.” “Oh, you and that crazy flood!”

“…mad at you at what you said.” That doesn’t sound right. Shouldn’t it be “…mad at you for what you said.”? “…mad at you about what you said.”?

“OK. Come on over. In the middle of a really bad storm. So’s I can tell you all about Noah’s flood.”

Note the build-up of the character, here. Chick makes her out to be all arrogant and pompous and know-it-all. Just wait’ll he shows her!

Commentary:

“Is that Bob?” What, she didn’t remember? She’s still mad at him about something he said to her, but she doesn’t even know who he is? Hrm. Interesting. Well, relatively, of course.

“I’m glad you made it! So I can tell you all about Noah’s ark! Come on in, we’ll get started!”

Uh… wait a second, here. Okay, the earth is only 6,000 years old. Hrm. I’d like to refer you all to Big Daddy, one of Chick’s other ‘tracts’. One of his arguments was, and this is a quote, “Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years.” Okay. I’m a bit confused… see, I’m no mathematician. How many times does 212 million go into 6,000? It’s… it’s a lot, right?

This right here contradicts his other argument and makes it completely invalid. Or, his other argument in the other tract contradicts this argument and makes it completely invalid. Sorry, Jack, you can’t have both.

Again, the source is something provided by Chick Publications. Bravo, Jack, you sell a book that backs up your views. I’m going to start selling copies of “The Neverending Story” so I can prove that big fluffy dog-like dragons exist.

Commentary:

“I’m taking college courses.” He makes this sound like a bad thing. What, is learning against god now, too? “Thou shalt not understandeth.” Man. He sure paints her as an arrogant bitch, here, doesn’t he?

And here we go again with the “science is against god” argument. *Sigh*

Commentary:

It’s mythology, man! Chill! Dude! Aesop’s Fables, dude! Man! Embrace me, hippie brother!

Oh, yeah, that’s right… seashells are unbelievably heavy! No human in their right mind would even dare to pick up a seashell! You know, he’s absolutely right. There’s no other possible explanation for seashells being transported from near water to somewhere far above sea level. I mean, my sister has seashells stuck to the monitor of the computer in her room, so apparently my house was flooded and the seashells somehow adhered themselves around her screen and on her keyboard. It all makes so much sense now.

How is disproving something “deliberately sidestepping” it? Is everyone who proves a fundie’s argument wrong merely “deliberately sidestepping” it?

Commentary:

“Who cares!” I hate how he keeps painting people who don’t agree with his side of the argument as totally dismissive assholes or bitches who treat the poor fundies like shit.

Commentary:

“Sin had corrupted the entire human race… giving them third eyes, transforming them into members of KISS, making them wear raincoats, removing their eyes!” That’s right, people with eye-patches are EVIL! What’s with this panel, anyway? It’s like a ‘Scooby Doo Villians Reunion’ or something.

And only ONE MAN out of the entire population of humans on earth still believed in god.

Commentary:

Okay, that’s 1,518,750 cubic feet. How many different kinds of animals are there on earth? Oh, especially if you take into account that these people argue that “evolution doesn’t exist”, which means that it’s every single species of animal that exists today, plus all the ones that hadn’t yet gone extinct as of 4,400 years ago that were “chosen by god”. Plus food. Plus, they need to move around so they don’t get all atrophied and everything. Plus, he had to organize them properly to insure they didn’t eat each other. Etc.

Was it going to rain inside of the ship? No? Then why cover the entire inside in pitch?

Commentary:

Oh, HA HA HA HA HA, Jack. Yeah, dinosaurs and man co-existed. Nice argument, there, moron. Okay, if dinosaurs and man co-existed, then how come there weren’t still dinosaurs after the flood? Even if there really was this massive, world-destroying flood, and even though not every animal was chosen to be “saved”, what about water- and air-dwelling dinosaurs? *Sigh*

Okay, if Noah was the only person left who believed in god, then why allow him to save his apparently sinful and evil family?

Floods don’t really “destroy the earth” as much as just fill and cover things with water.

Commentary:

Hah. Dig the expression on her face, it’s like she’s choking. And what the hell’s this “mother earth” shit? Not everyone who doesn’t believe in Noah’s flood or that the earth is 6,000 years old believes in “mother earth”. I like how he just kinda generalizes everyone who disagrees with his viewpoint as being ignorant, weak, arrogant hippies. “Not mother earth, man! Dude!”

“There IS no mother earth, Janet!” He’s totally tearing down her beliefs. What a shocking revelation! There is no mother earth? He can’t be serious!

Commentary:

Hrmmm… then where’s the evidence of all of this shit now? I mean, sure, you can flood something but that doesn’t necessarily destroy it completely. Unless it was flooded with acid. But even then, you know… plastics and stuff.

Seriously, though, if these people had these amazing societies and wonderous machines, you’d think there’d have still been evidence of such afterwards. “And the flood just totally dissolved huge gears and buildings and… and… and… everything!”

“But their hearts were filthy and they hated god. And burned teddy bears. And they were all transvestites and pirates.” Nice drawing, Jack.

Commentary:

HAH. Now this is funny… the concept of a “shell” of water that just magically hung in the air. How come god never does anything cool like this nowadays? Why didn’t he put the “shell” back up after everyone was killed in the flood? I mean, it was supposed to be, like, the whole world starting over again, wasn’t it?

Oh, man. Again with the dinosaurs. This makes me giggle.

People sure became corrupt in their two generations of existence. If they lived to be 900 and the earth is “only 6,000 years old” and the flood was 4,400 years ago… I wonder how overpopulated the world had become in that time. 1,600 years is a lot of fucking.

And what, exactly, are “perfect” weather conditions? Some people like weather extremely cold, some people like it extremely hot. “Perfect” is all in the eye of the beholder, really. And how would you know if it was perfect or not? Do you not need ‘bad’ to appreciate the ‘good’?

Hahahaha… man… fucking dinosaurs. *Sigh*

Commentary:

People call the retarded kid who sings with a portable karaoke player on the hill across the street from the local Burger King crazy, too, and that doesn’t stop him, either.

Actually, I wouldn’t really consider being called “insane” terrible ridicule. I mean, come on… these people were apparently incredibly more evil than anything we have nowadays, they’re going to have to do better than that.

Hrm. How come we don’t have pterodactyls anymore, then?

“CRAZY!” “Where are they coming from?” Again, they’re going to have to do better than that. I can mock more evilly than that without even batting an eye and I don’t see “god” trying to flood me.

Commentary:

Various kinds of young land dinosaurs. Where’s he getting this proof of dinosaurs and man coexisting from? I’d really like to know. And it had better not be something “available from Chick Publications” either.

50,000 animals. Okay, let’s do our math again. 50,000 animals is about how many cubic feet? Then include food, water, running space, etc. not to mention the fact that they have to be carefully seperated to avoid any mating or hunting. And certain animals need certain foods, so you’d have to have quite a variety of different plants and meat to keep the animals alive and healthy. It’s not as easy as “Noah built the ark and all the animals came aboard and everything was peachy and fine until the water went away.”

Also, what about the bacteria? WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE BACTERIA?

I wish I had god-powered door openers.

Commentary:

Okay, this massive canopy of water collapses and it takes it forty days and nights for it to completely fall to the earth? And it turns into rain? What, does it evaporate on the way down and recondensate as tiny water droplets, then linger around in the sky for a while before slowly drifting down to the ground?

And, wait… of ice and water? If this thing’s functioning as our shield from the sun, you’d think the direct beating heat rays would, you know… keep it warm.

Commentary:

There were no mountains or canyons on earth before any of this, of course. The surface of the earth was completely smooth.

Of course, the proven concept that canyons were formed due to thousands of years of various forms of erosion is totally bullshit. It makes much more sense that it all happened because of magical tidal waves. And mountains weren’t formed from thousands of years of plate-shifting, they all just magically popped up all at once. And the Great Lakes were formed from when ‘god’ was done making earth and he pushed it up into space. They’re the indentations from his fingers. Man, it’s all so clear to me now.

Does ‘covered with water’ necessarily mean ‘ruined’? Would you call the bottom of the ocean ‘ruined’? I wouldn’t. I’d call it a beautiful ecosystem.

Wouldn’t most of the trees already be underwater? Sure, bodies float, but trees are kinda… you know… rooted into the ground.

Commentary:

So was there a huge sphere of millions of tons of dirt floating in the air as a protective shield as well? I mean, basically what he’s saying is that, at any given point during the flood, there were millions of tons of dirt and rock just floating in the water that all eventually settled on top of everything when the… wait. That’s another thing… where the fuck did all the water go, then? If there was enough water to bury the entire planet during this supposed “flood”, where did it all end up going? The magical floating water sphere isn’t there anymore, and the entire earth isn’t still buried in water, so what happened to all of it? Do you know how many gallons of water it would take to flood every inch of land on the planet? We’re talking oceans, here, people. It didn’t just all evaporate or sink into the ground, ’cause if it did, we’d have huge floating masses of water in the sky instead of clouds, and ocean levels would be a significant amount higher.

To give a rough estimation of how much water would be needed to flood the earth, here’s an excerpt from the NSF website regarding how many gallons of water are in the Pacific Ocean alone:


According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Pacific Ocean proper contains 169,900,000 cubic miles of water or 173,700,000 cubic miles, if one includes the marginal seas, such as the Tasman and South China Seas. With some simple calculations this can be converted to cubic inches. Since there are 231 cubic inches to the gallon, the approximate number of gallons is 187 or 192 quintillions, depending on which initial value is used. That is approximately 190,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1.9×1020 gallons. (Dr. Sandy Norman, Department of Mathematics, The University of Texas at San Antonio, Texas)

So there are how many, like, what, QUINTILLION gallons of water, here, completely unaccounted for. Did it all just magically disappear? Did it float off into space? What the fuck happened to all of it?

Anyway, Jack is trying to get us to believe, here, that there were millions of tons of dirt and gravel floating around quite a distance above the ground that just sorta landed on top of everything, burying it in “layers of sediment”, which means that it didn’t all fall at once, enough fell to create one layer of sediment, and then after that one settled, some more fell and formed another layer while the rest just floated around waiting for it to settle, and etc. I guess for a brief moment in time, dirt and rock somehow became lighter than water. *Sigh*

This guy obviously has no concept of any kind of geological science. Layers and layers of sediment aren’t going to form within a period of forty days and forty nights. And how come, if man and dinosaur co-existed like Jack “I’ve got diarrhea in my brain liquid” Chick is stating, there has never been any evidence of dinosaurs and humans being found at the same depth in these apparently instantly-formed layers of sediment?

Huh-huh…huh-huh… Dude, check it out… that archaeologist has a bone… huh-huh…

“See Creation Seminar series by Dr. Kent Hovind…” I can only imagine. “Layers of sediment don’t take that long to form. It can take as little as less than forty days to form many layers of millions of tons of dirt and rock that have the ability to somehow magically separate and organize different kinds of animals and other buried matter. And did you know that water can just disappear without a trace, and that it can defy basically every law of physics?”

Looks like our old buddy Jack should go back to elementary school science for a couple of years until he understands BASIC SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.

Commentary:

So if it was only Noah and his family who were saved, where’d all the different ethnicities of man come from? I mean, according to Jack and all these shitheaded fundamentalist weirdos, evolution doesn’t exist AT ALL, so Noah’s family must’ve had quite a bit of ethnic diversity in order to repopulate the world with every different race of man there is on earth.

Not everything is combustable, Jack. And good luck re-layering and re-depositing “millions of tons” of non-flammable rock and dirt with the rapid oxidation of whatever flammable material there is laying around. And is the next “Noah” going to construct a completely fireproof shelter to be saved?

“Zieg Hail! Zieg Hail! Mein Führer, please tell us more about the flood!” How come this guy looks so much like Hitler? I thought Jack was trying to make the characters on his side of the argument more appealing than the ones against him. I guess the design for this guy just sorta slipped by under his radar or something. Maybe Janet is “still mad at [him] at what [he] said” about how fun it is to mass-murder jewish people.

“2,000 years ago, God (the Son)…” I’ve never quite understood this “god is three entities, but the same entity” thing. I advise against contemplating the stupidity behind the concept for too long because you’ll end up giving yourself some kind of palsy. If I was “god” and divided myself off into another completely separate part that was totally unaware of my intentions (“My father, why hast thou forsaken me?”), both parts can’t be the same entity. It’s like multiple-personality disorder. Even if there are dozens and dozens of personalities living inside of the same body and mind, they’re all individual entities. Even if it is “god”, and even if “he” is supposedly omnipotent, and even if there actually was a “Jesus” who was actually the “son of god” and all that, there’s no changing the fact that two separate entities that act totally and completely independently from each other CANNOT BE A SINGLE ENTITY.

Commentary:

THERE’S a compassionate god for you. “If y’all don’t believe in me the way I want you to, I’m just gonna kill the whole lot of you except for the few people who still believe and start things all over again.” I guess the “if you love something, set it free. If it returns to you, then it’s yours. If it doesn’t, it never was” expression doesn’t apply for “who” is described as a “loving”, “compassionate” god. I guess the one for “him” goes, “if you love something, set it free. If it doesn’t come back, KILL THEM AAAAALLLL!” You’d think if this “god” character really DID “love” us the way the bible describes, he wouldn’t really give a shit if we believed in him or not, because LOVE DOES NOT INVOLVE THE MASS MURDER OF ALMOST EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET. “And little Adolf loved the jews SO much that he murdered as many million of them as he could…”

The weak-mindedness of the non-fundie characters strikes again in yet another Chick tract. A college education, and scientific proof, and professors, and physical evidence, and logic, and etc… are all completely toppled in this girl’s world by a two-minute conversation with a person whom she dislikes because of his extreme fundamentalist viewpoint. “I’m angry with you regarding something you said to me.” “Blah blah magical sphere of water that floats above the earth blah blah blah dinosaurs and man co-existing blah blah I have no supporting evidence of any of this blah blah blah story based on total impossibilities and defiance of every law of physics blah blah blah COCK IN YOUR MOUTH!” “You have changed my mind, sir. I have been lied to my whole life by everyone. Please forgive me, lord, for believing in logic and reason and scientific proof. I shall never commit the sin of understanding and thinking realistically again.”

Commentary:

Aaaaaand the point of that whole visit was, what, exactly? I mean, if “god” plans on destroying everything again ANYWAY, then what the fuck was the whole “Jesus dying for our sins” thing about?

“For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son…” (Oops, Jack! You forgot to capitalize the “h”s!) Anyway, he loved the world so much that he destroyed it, then sent his son to die for our sins, then is apparently going to destroy the world again. I dunno, makes sense to me. I know that when I love someone enough, it’s only natural for me to find some way to murder them.

“…that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” In other words, “die”. This whole thing is so fucking retarded. “I’m gonna kill everyone because a lot of people don’t believe in me! Fuck what the rest of them want, I’m pissed off!” Everyone dies because this “loving”, “compassionate” god is pissed off that there are people who don’t believe in him. Nice. Where can I sign up to believe in that intense, intricate web of hypocrisy?

What’s with the “40 days” theme, by the way?

Commentary:

Evolution? Wait, I thought we were talking about “Noah’s flood”. Of course, I guess I shouldn’t really expect the work of Jack Chick to make any sense, so whatever. This whole tract is just SO incredibly STUPID.

I don’t think it’s gonna help you much if you repeatedly call him a son of a bitch, Janet.

“I’ve been so wicked! With trying to use logic and understand reality! Through taking college courses and believing in scientific proof, I’ve been so horribly evil, lord! Please forgive me!” *Sigh* Come the fuck ON. This is just… severely retarded, to say the very least.

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” So even if there is this massive “destruction by fire” thing that ends up happening, if I kneel down at the last minute and call upon Jesus, everything’s gonna be okay? Awesome!

Commentary:

Yeah, another one of these tract end-pieces. You can just skip right over this, really. Unless, of course, you’re keen on giving yourself embolisms.


I still haven’t gotten any e-mail from ol’ Jack or any of his followers about any of this. I’m really rather disappointed. I wonder if he even knows about any of this. I’d really like to see any of the arguments he’d attempt to present in his defense. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, he’s a complete moron with no understanding of basically anything, and his pathetic excuses for “arguments” to try to convince people that he’s right and that the bible should be taken literally can be easily countered by a 19-year-old college drop-out videogame designer. I sure do hope he’s not devoting too much of his time to making these pieces of solidified piss.

I’ll keep you posted regarding any mail I receive from our buddy Jack, and I’ll post any bullshit legal threats or death threats or hate mail or whatever on the “Dissections” front page for you all to get a good laugh out of.

Until next time, kiddies.



All images Copyright 2002 Chick Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved

153 thoughts on “Chick Dissection | It’s Coming”

  1. Well this is no where near as good as the work you did on Big Daddy.It sounds like you mayby angry at Christians.Since you wrote:I’d really like to see any of the arguments he’d attempt to present in his defense. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, he’s a complete moron with nounderstanding of basically anything, and his pathetic excuses for “arguments� to try to convince people that he’s right and that the bible should be taken literally can be easily countered by a 19-year-old college drop-out videogame designer.
    Look I don’t like Chick. and I am not a Fudementalist. You are correct the Bible should not be taken literaly,however that does not mean the Bible is not the truth.Chick is giving a very warped view of the Book of Genisis.Keep in mind when ever you read A chick tract that when he says anything he puts foot notes.If they are biblical,and you look them up usally it has nothing to with story or point he is trying to make.
    He has to string verses togther that have nothing in common with each other. You can do this with any book.I could get a Biography of Ted Bundy string sentences togther and at the end he will look like a Saint.
    Chick is doing a shell game with the Bible.
    It sounds like you are mad at the bible or Christians.When in fact the Bible is the victom in Chick tracts.Not the enemy.Also notice that in places like where he talks about dinosours in Noahs boat he cant even offer up biblical passage wich means he has no proof at all to back up that ridiculus claim.Another trick he uses “wich even funnier” is a footnote that offers another Chick publication as proof.I already dont belive what he is writeing so now buy another book from him.Laghable.
    Anyway getting back to my point the creation story in Genisis. 1. The Bibal is the truth. 2. Evolotion is a theory and may also be the truth. 3. 2 Truths can never contradict each other. Lets look at the most important part of the creation story. In the Beging God greated the heaven and the earth etc etc.You can read the rest if your intersted.Remeber there are 2 Creation storys in the book of Genisis.If you list the sequence of the story in order God builds the Earth as follows.1.The Sun 2.The Earth 3.The sea 4.Vegatation 5.Animals The last thing God creates is Man. This story falls right in line with the big bang theory as well as Evoloitional theory.
    Always keep in mind the Bibal is not a science book and is not all inclusive.The Bibal itself makes no such claim.Only Chick and his Ilk do that.You unfortanatly do as well.You are looking at in in only scietific terms you write:Okay, this massive canopy of water collapses and it takes it forty days and nights for it to completely fall to the earth? And it turns into rain? What, does it evaporate on the way down and recondensate as tiny water droplets, then linger around in the sky for a while before slowly drifting down to the ground?
    The problem with this is that you are completeley leaving out the original audience.That this was originaly wrote for.Genisis (or for that matter any book in the Bibal) is wrote for 3 audiences 1 the original 2 the present (us) 3 The last.
    This must be factored into any Bible reading or any other anciant text that used for that matter.
    The original audience were all members of the flat Earth society.Modern man is not.God does not go into all these deatails.That is for anstonemers.The Bibal does not give the cure for Cancer does not mean that some day it will not be revieled. Your approch to reading it is only that of a 21st century man.The bibal was wrote 1000nds of years ago.Think how much the world has changed in only 100 years. In this way you are making the same mistake Chick does. A litural interpitation.Also the 1st 5 Books of the Bibal ( The jewish Torah wich means law ) are wrote in anciant Hebrew the Hebrew Idoms of the time dont always lend them sleves to modern readers,If i wrote you a letter.
    Wich I wrote it is Raining cats and dogs in English.5000 years from now it is translated to Chinese. What would that reader interpet? In your world and Chicks it would mean dogs and cats are falling from the sky.
    If you need more clarification and you think all Christians are Jack Chick.Contact a Jewish Rabbi who is well grounded in the Tora,for a proper understanding of the Book of Genisis.
    As I mentioned earlier 2 Truths can never contradict one another.If God made Adam today how old would he be ? An infant,if God can do anything he could make him 25.It is another question not ansewered in the Bibal.
    Lets say he is 25 God sends him to earth.Adam walks into a clinic for a phsical.The nurse asks his age he ansewers 1 day the nurse says no you look 25 years old.
    Who is telling the Truth ? They both are the nurse is bound by the laws of the univerce and God is not.No one can say with absoulute certaity the age of the Earth.
    Silly argument to get hung up in.It saddens me that Chick turns so many people away from the truth.As you wrote its easy to poke holes in his theorys one should not be looking for complicated ansewers from people like that.
    Joe Coelman

  2. Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your taking the time to write.

    I am going to point you to two things: First, the date of the post. As the site has been renovated since, the date is an approximation because I didn’t keep track of such things at the time of this Dissection’s inception and had to place it somewhere in the chronology. I know it was some point in the late first half of 2002. In any event, over three years have lapsed in that time, and my personal views have adapted and evolved.

    Secondly, I’ll point out something you quote in your initial paragraph: “19-year-old”. If I retained the views I had when I was nineteen, I’d consider myself a failure as a human being.

    So this doesn’t accurately represent what I currently believe or think about religion. I’ll refer you to the “Rants” and “Neuron Snaps” of the last year or so for a more accurate depiction of my current ideas. You can find them in the nav to the left, and there are plenty that deal with this particular topic.

    You’re right, though, in that I had a general distaste for Christianity in general at the time. It came as a bit of a backlash to certain things I felt were happening to the country, and lacking the frames of reference I have now, I was unable to pinpoint problems and address ideas as accurately.

    I don’t think this is my best Dissection, no. Often, it’s difficult to counter ideas that are so laughably stupid without outright calling them so. I believe I was also attempting to be offensive enough to invoke a response from Chick himself.

    I feel you’re maybe confused about the nature of truth. You claim that two truths can’t contradict each other, but what really is “truth”? For many–especially fundamentalists–the truth can often conflict with evidence with which they’re presented, because they believe that through some divine process of an apparently deceitful God, things aren’t always as they seem. Thus, what we feel is the truth based on observations and apparent evidence can to them be “lies” because it all conflicts with a pre-established, inflexible worldview. We see things evident in such a way as to suggest that the universe is greater than 6,000 years old, and they see things as arranged by God (such as stars placed at particular distances in space, with velocities that imply age) to make it seem like the universe is much older than it really is (which to them is 6,000 years).

    They’re both considered to be truth by two different parties, and they both conflict with each other in a pretty extreme way. There’s nothing about the term “truth” that suggests that if two parties believe conflicting truth, then there is no conflict. And there’s nothing about “truth”, as it can be known to mankind, to suggest that there can’t be conflict.

    Now, as far as the REAL truth is concerned–which is, of course, an unknowable–there of course can’t be conflict. But for the “truth” humans are capable of grasping–the flawed equivalent limited to the dimensions of our meaty brains–it can be anything anyone is willing to believe is true. It’s just that there’s no real sense in using non-apparent “truth” (i.e. fantasy-based “truths” about gods and demons and magic and miracles) to deal with a reality that seems in conflict, or that in no discernible way shows evidence that the fantasy is true.

    I mean, for all we know, it just may be true that there’s some grandfatherly-like figure riding around on a cloud watching every detail of our movements and lives, but if evidence indicates otherwise, or no supporting evidence exists, then obviously it was intended to be that way, so what’s the point of arguing or trying to resist? If God means to deceive, who are we to argue with his will?

    (I’m going to get to all of this, by the way, in the Supreme Crap of the United States series of which I’m currently in the middle. I have most of this particular post written, but haven’t posted it yet for various reasons. Stay tuned.)

    Again, thanks for writing, and because I’m unsure if you’ll be notified a reply has been posted to your comment, I’ll e-mail this to you as well.

  3. Thank you for writting back,I’ll do my best to reply.
    You wrote : “this doesn’t accurately represent what I currently believe or think about religion. I’ll refer you to the “Rantsâ€? and “Neuron Snapsâ€? of the last year or so for a more accurate depiction of my current ideas. You can find them in the nav to the left, and there are plenty that deal with this particular topic”.
    I went to were you told me. Just a Left wing hate site desinged to provoke outrage from people you dont see eye to eye with thru the use of foul language.As well as opinions no one in their right mind (including yourself would belive)
    You have a dislike for Catholics and conservitives.If what you were writting was true I would dislike them as well. Since I am both however I know better.
    To counter all your all your ridicules charges would go way beyond the scope of this letter.So I will just stick to the general topic of Science ,and the Bible.
    The Bible and science can never contradict each other, because two truths cannot be contradictory. When we find an apparent contradiction between the two, it is generally due to a misunderstanding regarding what one is saying.
    Science cannot really prove the age of the universe. All that scientists can do is speculate about the age of the universe by extrapolating from observed phenomena. No scientist alive today can say that he or she has first-hand information regarding the beginning of the universe.

    The Bible tells us how old the universe is.

    Science tells us how old the universe seems to be.As I pointed out in my 1st post useing Adam as an analogy.It is clear that God would not be bound by the laws of time and space. Human beings however are,I realy dont know how to make it any cleaer. I wish i could.
    Religion is guided by faith.It takes an abstract mind to look beyond time and space. The oppisite of your post where you seem to think it takes a narrow mind. I belive just the oppisite is true.
    On the contrary some of the most devout men are scientists.Particuliarly those engaged in astronemy.The reason is clear once an astronmer ansewers 1 question it only opens the door to another 1000.
    This is one reason as I mentioned earlier that God spoke to early man in a way he could grasp.If god were to come to explain cration to modern man. He would be much more specific. Then 5000 years from today man would have more Questions as well as skepticks claming God deception . Since God had not ansewered their questions 5000 years prior.
    That is the nature of mans evolment.

    The scientist that does not believe in God has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be. The one who believes in God, however, can perfectly accept the fact that the world was created in a mature state and therefore does not contradict the laws of science.
    Thank You
    Joe Coleman

  4. I would be more willing to read your opinions, Mr. Coleman, if your spelling, punctuation, and grammar weren’t horrid.

  5. How am I provoking outrage by encouraging understanding? Note, please, for future reading, to differentiate between the tone and theme of posts. Some things require outrage, and I outrage as necessary. Where it is warranted, I supply the required style of language. This is because I am a writer. I am not necessarily personally as angry as some of these pieces come across; I merely change the tone to suit the content.

    You’ll notice–I hope–that in my more philosophical posts, my tone and demeanor is much different from my topical outrage posts. I find it immature when people who can’t argue against the meat of the argument choose to attack the pepper. That is, you can’t counter what I’m saying, so you instead choose to go after the fact that I at times utilize foul language for effect. It’d be just as petty as my going after your, erm, lack of mastery of the English language.

    Anyway, all you’re doing is proving that anyone can solve any problem by injecting some kind of magical element. How would it be any different for me to claim that there’s a magical invisible bumblebee with an infinite number of arms floating in space, who disguises himself as the sun and manipulates every individual atom in our galaxy? Can you prove that’s not real? If I convinced a large number of people to believe it (many of them forcibly; see also: the Crusades; see also: the Inquisition; see also: Puritanism; see also: much of the religious aggressiveness of the last two millenia), does that automatically make it true?

    What makes the Bible true? Because it claims to be the word of God? If I write something, and a thousand years from now, someone reads it, and reads that I wrote that it’s the word of God, does that automatically make it true? It’s recursive argument. The Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true. Just because I can’t argue against that, it doesn’t mean it’s a good argument. I can’t argue against the giant invisible bumblebee thing, either, and that was just plain silly.

    Also realize that much of your theology, if you’ll bother to look, isn’t even from the Bible. This is more true for fundamentalism and post-revivalism Christianity than for Catholicism, but it still holds true. Much of the regalia and jewel-encrusted, gold-plated, parade-like fanfare especially isn’t Biblical in nature. (This is all coming from an ex-Catholic, by the way. Baptized, confirmed, and all the like. (Though, my will split long before I physically separated myself from the church, for the sake of my dad.))

    (Continuing in another post, in case something goes wrong with this or the power goes out, because I don’t want to lose everything I’ve written.)

  6. Deny if you must my views on religion simply because I swear and am not conservative. Please note, though, that this is not a “left-wing hate site”. While most of my older posts are rather hostile in nature, and while a lot of my newer posts can be very irreverent, I don’t consider my views “left wing” at all. In fact, this is what the middle ground of America should be thinking. If you think it’s extreme, then perhaps it’s your own philosophy you should be questioning.

    After all, if it’s fundamentalist views that should be at the center, how much further in that direction can one get in order to form the extreme? What would be the “right wing”, if fundamentalist views were in the center? I can name a few fictional dystopian empires. (I’m not saying that your views are as far right as fundamentalists, but they’re seemingly close enough, and fundamentalist is as right as one can possibly get.)

    Here’s extreme left wing (“wing”, of course, implies the furthest in a given political direction one can go): people who would like to outlaw religion; people who think that maybe it’d be in the Earth’s best interest if humanity committed suicide; people who would rather kill a human than an animal, if the choice were unavoidable; people who think there shouldn’t be any pollution ever and are ignorant (perhaps willfully) to the fact that it’s an inevitable byproduct of human existence; et cetera.

    Those are extremes. There are extremes on both sides, and I tend to disagree with them both. Arguing for separation of religion–all religion, including atheism and antitheism–from government is not extreme. It is, in fact, an American principle, and something that allows you to be Catholic and voice your Catholic views on the internet. Be thankful. Pointing out that a sensible God would have more respect for good deeds done out of personal conviction without belief in God than good done out of fear of eternal repercussion isn’t extreme, it’s merely rational thought at work.

    Again, if you feel this is somehow “extreme”, perhaps you should examine your own views. I think it’s far more extreme to believe that God would overlook deed for belief, and let Hitler into heaven because at the last minute he accepted Jesus as his savior but not some kind old man who spent his life trying to make other people’s lives better just because he may have been an atheist.

    So, no, given the evidence I’ve observed, and evidence that’s free for anyone at all to observe, I’d like to think that I’m somewhere in liberal portion of the spectrum, but certainly not the “wing”.

    I also don’t feel that this is a hate site. In fact, if you’ll look at many of my more philosophical posts, I’m encouraging understanding. It’s hard to truly hate someone if you understand them and how they think. Though it’d certainly be a much simpler approach to just violently and thoroughly annihilate any opposition, I’d much rather encourage a different way of thinking in the minds of those who disagree with me. I realize I’m not about to do this with the more anger-based event-reaction posts, but I feel my philosophical posts–as much as I may borrow from other existing philosophies and as unoriginal as some of my ideas may be–do a good job of expressing a rational viewpoint in a sensible fashion.

    By the way, to clarify, as there seems there may be a bit of confusion: using foul language does not denote hatred, and it is in no way indicative of political or philosophical affiliation. I’ve heard dyed-in-the-wool Catholics use foul language on par with my own (though I’m much more creative with wordplay and combining bad words to create new, more humorous ones), for instance.

    In any event, reading the material I offered earlier would, to any objective reader, in no way result in the conclusion that this is in any way a collection of “left wing” views, and it especially wouldn’t lead them to label this a “hate site”, as you have so done.

    I am, I’ll admit, somewhat insulted, and a little worried that you might, as seems apparent, view any disagreement with your worldview as some kind of hate-filled attack.

  7. The Lord our God is not an author of deception, you know: what concievable purpose would God have in creating a world with apparent age? It would only confuse people once they got around to using the logical faculties he endowed them with.

  8. Wow!
    I have a lot to respond to today 1st to Janet .I will write this on word just for you.
    Since you don’t seem to grasp a rough draft..
    Jabberwork asks “How am I provoking outrage by encouraging understanding “My question is how do you encourage understanding by provoking outrage. You then Wrote “You’ll notice–I hope–that in my more philosophical posts, my tone and demeanor is much different from my topical outrage posts. I find it immature when people who can’t argue against the meat of the argument choose to attack the pepper. That is, you can’t counter what I’m saying, so you instead choose to go after the fact that I at times utilize foul language for effect. It’d be just as petty as my going after your, erm, lack of mastery of the English language.�
    Hey I went where you told me to read, and I read. Please be more specific. What post? Trust me I am not trying to hurt your feelings. Putting together a web site of this magnitude takes skill I don’t have. As you and Janet love to point out.
    As far as finding it immature when people who can’t argue against the meat of the argument choose to attack the pepper. Hey I throw away a Fillet mignon if there is too much pepper . Here is a typical piece you asked me to read :
    What were they thinking? Oh, wait. They weren’t. They were using the power of faith.
    Long live the Pope rampant propogation of the AIDS virus due to outmoded, ridiculous attitudes toward rubber genital sheaths! Long live the Pope violence against homosexuals and abortion clinics supported by closed-minded old hypocrites whose understanding of biology and the world is based on magical fables! Long live the Pope pederasty without consequence!
    Well, at least he’ll probably die in relatively short order.
    Now I ask you, where is the beef? You want to call me immature? That takes kind of chutzpah! Another thing I don’t have any problem with the use of foul language. I use it myself there is a time and place for it. When used in the wrong context it sticks out like a sore thumb. If you fancy yourself as writer you should understand that.
    The meat here is the Church wants people to die from aids. The church advocates violence toward homosexuals. And the blowing up of abortion clinics.
    You honestly believe that? That does not sound hate filled to you? You got a game of show and tell gone on here. You’re telling me everything showing me nothing. You have any Papal document that backs that up, or is it all in your mind? I don’t mind arguing, next time bring an argument. Then we have this: (Anyway, all you’re doing is proving that anyone can solve any problem by injecting some kind of magical element. How would it be any different for me to claim that there’s a magical invisible bumblebee with an infinite number of arms floating in space, who disguises himself as the sun and manipulates every individual atom in our galaxy? Can you prove that’s not real?:)
    If you can get the Christians, Buddhist Muslims and Jews to follow along on your bumble bee theory, well try it. Why do atheists use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is their only chance of remaining an atheist. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It’s called God.
    There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.
    But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?
    Anyway, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can’t get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)
    How much does this argument prove? Not all that the Christian means by God, of course — no argument can do that. But it proves a pretty thick slice of God: some designing intelligence great enough to account for all the design in the universe and the human mind. If that’s not God, what is it? Now you and Alec should give this some thought. Before you embark on your Bumble Bee Religion.
    You also write “Also realize that much of your theology, if you’ll bother to look, isn’t even from the Bible.�
    I never said it was Christ didn’t come to Earth to write a best seller he came to establish his church on Earth. Matter of fact Christ didn’t write anything. Make no mistake I am aware of it.
    In reviewing your post your all over the place. The Crusades the Inquisitions separation of church and state etc,etc .I sense a lack of historical knowledge. This is classic, it’s not that liberals lie its that they no so much that isn’t so. I can get into all this at later date. One thing at time I’ll give you answers.
    One last thing you wrote: “I am, I’ll admit, somewhat insulted, and a little worried that you might, as seems apparent, view any disagreement with your worldview as some kind of hate-filled attack�
    I didn’t mean to insult you I’m sorry if you took it that way. I meant no disrespect. I most certainly do not believe that any one who disagrees with is hate filled. I think anyone who is hate filled is hate filled.
    Joe Coleman

  9. First Draft? Where are you publishing?

    Are you 12 or stupid or both?

    You’re lucky that Jabberwock cares about his site, and about even communicating with opposition, enough to even respond to you; but I’m glad you’re reading the site.

  10. “Rough draft�? Where else are you planning on publishing this? Did you intend to revise these at some point? In any event, I fail to see how I “love to point out� [emphasis mine] that you lack intellect enough to assemble a website. As such a thing was never mentioned, you have no grounds for such an accusation. If you were speaking in general terms—like where Janet pointed out your poor grammar, or I made brief mention of it—I fail to see how you could conclude that either of us “loves� to do that. I derived no pleasure from making mention of it, and only did so because it was relevant to my point.

    Okay, did you read any of the longer posts? Like I said, there are two different kinds of posts. The ones you seem to have read are the angry ones that I post either a) for more humorous purposes or b) out of total outrage over a particular situation. I admit that I can be a bit of an asshole in these. It is intentional. Of course all you’re going to find is outrage if you only read the outrage-oriented posts. “A Fuck You to the FBI and Bush� is another good one to throw at me and claim I’m only being angry. I can pick out a few others, if you’d like.

    The other kinds of posts are usually longer, and are much better and well-thought-out.

    I do, however, appreciate your going through and reading enough of the site to track down one of the nastiest and most angry and probably least justified posts I’ve done. While we’re on the subject of the pope, though, I’ll defend my position of opposition: This pope was one of the higher-ranking Catholic Church officials who supported relocating priests and preventing them from facing the consequences of molestation. So that defends my accusation of pederasty without consequence. Even if he hasn’t done it himself, he acted as an enabler for others.

    This pope has a history of supporting the anti-contraception position that does oh-so-well against STDs and pregnancy. People aren’t going to stop having sex, but the faithful would rather do it and not commit the “sin� of contraception. If many of them aren’t even educated on what a condom is or how contraception truly works, then they can’t even make an intelligent choice about the matter. I’ll admit I was a bit off with the abortion clinic bombings and violence against gays, but I was in a bit of an outrage. Like I said, this is far from one of my best posts.

    Read, I don’t know, “Opening Our Arms to Gilead�, or “What’s the Matter With Hollywood?�, or some of the “SCrOTUS� series (which, I’ll admit, is poorly-named), or any number of other things. You can sit here and attack the worst of my posts, if you want, or you can read the ones that actually say something meaningful and we can discuss the ideas themselves instead of how big an asshole I can be.

    So your “logical� explanation is that an all-powerful being uses magic to fill in the gaps of what science has yet to discover? Well, that prevents anyone from ever thinking. Why didn’t we just stick with the conclusion that the universe revolves around the Earth? Or that gravity is God tugging down on us? The internet doesn’t operate with the physics of electricity at all—it’s God making it all work. I mean, admit it or not, but your conclusion is that it’s somehow bad to want to learn, and that anyone who chooses to learn instead of accepting that God is responsible for everything (especially things science currently has difficulty explaining) is somehow evil.

    You’re also unclear on the definition of atheism, by the way. Read some of my other lengthier posts (I believe specifically one with a subsection called “Confusion Regarding Words Beginning in ‘A’�, or something to that effect) to learn about why the ‘a’ before ‘theism’ doesn’t denote an anti-theist perspective, but a non-theist perspective. I’m not anti-God, I just believe that given observable evidence, there’s no clear indication of his existence. I could be wrong. In fact, I’d like to be wrong. I’d like for there to be an all-powerful being somewhere who’ll make everything okay, and seat me on a cloud for being a good little boy.

    See, here’s the thing: I don’t think people should act on the presumption that God exists, and I don’t think people should act on the presumption that he doesn’t. There are people out there who do really horrible things because they believe God doesn’t exist. Whether God exists or not, though, there are other reasons horrible things should not be done, which we can gather based on the observable reality around us. It’s not that men shouldn’t rape women because God exists, it’s that men shouldn’t rape women because it’s a very negative thing for a man to rape a woman, based on the effects one can observe from past instances of rape.

    Because we can’t prove or disprove the existence of God, it’s something currently outside the realm of human knowledge. There can be faith, but not knowledge. We can’t base our actions on things we don’t know or can’t explain. I have no proof that the bumblebee exists or doesn’t, so it would be silly to base any of my actions on either assumption. I can only operate using what I know, because anything else is speculation, and there’s no telling whether my speculation is right as, say, a Catholic, or my neighbor’s speculation is right as, say, a Seventh-Day Adventist.

    To be atheist is to remove the theism. And honestly, I believe that any sensible God would respect more the man who did good of his own accord than the man who did good out of fear of eternal repercussions. Any other way, and he’s really not the type of being with whom I’d feel comfortable sharing an eternity, so my belief in him is moot either way. Either he’ll respect me because I did good in my life or he’ll hate me just because I didn’t believe in him, proving he’s the type with whom I won’t want to spend the rest of time anyway. But I’d rather my actions were genuine than done because I don’t want to be cast into an eternal lake of fire.

    There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

    Where are your numbers to back this up? And how is chronicling history “undesign�? Or psychology, for that matter: the study of the physiological workings of the human mind (neurology) seems not much different, as far as learning and knowledge are concerned, from the study of the psychological workings of the human mind. One is hardware, the other is software. And I’ve known plenty of scientists, directly or indirectly, who didn’t believe in God, or were unconvinced of his existence. In fact, considering your position on science seems to be, “if it can’t explain it, it’s a miracle of God�, I wouldn’t think many scientists who share your perspective would be that effective in discovering new things in their respective fields. “Hey, Jim, are you going to run that experiment on antimatter to try to explain why there’s relatively so little of it compared to matter?� “Naah, God did it, and if I question that, I’m an evil atheist who’s going to Hell.�

    “Intelligent Designâ€? simply cannot be used to take issue with evolution, by the way. If you want to use it to argue against any cosmological theory, you’re welcome to. But saying that God created everything doesn’t do anything at all to disprove that he created all life on Earth as a stew of single-celled organisms that followed a set of physical rules he created as well (molecular and biological physics), and that the forms that eventually developed weren’t directly designed by him. According to Intelligent Design–if it’s truly what it claims to be and isn’t thinly-veiled Creationism–God could very well have created the world with only single-celled organisms that developed on their own from there. Intelligent Design simply claims that there’s a design; if you actually try to say what that design was, you breach from Intelligent Design into Creationism. Who are you to say that evolution wasn’t God’s plan? Wouldn’t the best design be one that’s capable of independently adapting to best survive in its environment?

    That’s another thing, too: Who are you to assume the true will of God? Is God incapable of using reverse psychology for the ultimate good of mankind?

    Where are you getting this “causality� thing, by the way? And how do you know there’s not complexity enough in the randomness of the universe to provide the complexity of organic life?

    The Crusades and Inquisition are entirely relevant. I’m not seeing how you perceived them as non-sequiturs. Christianity (including Catholicism) has a history of violence in getting others to believe and punishing those who don’t. What’s this about my not knowing history? Are you going to claim the Crusades didn’t happen? Or the Inquisition? Or that they somehow didn’t involve Christianity in any way? How is it that any of this “isn’t so�?

    Here, allow me to make a blanket statement about conservatives: It’s not that conservatives lie; it’s just that they all get their information from imaginary people with pairs of scissors for heads who speak only in Aramaic sign language.

    See? I have no justification for what I just said, and nothing to back it up, and it holds just as much water as your blanket accusation of liberals “[knowing] so much that isn’t so�. Please refrain from using this approach to argument again. The same goes for the tactic of picking the worst things a person says and trying to use them to be representative of all cases. Anyone reading is fully capable of going and looking on their own, and finding the many other posts that exist here that you chose to ignore for the sake of supporting your argument that I only say hateful, awful things.

  11. Oh! Oh! May I?

    “You are correct the Bible should not be taken literaly,however that does not mean the Bible is not the truth.”

    Ok…

    “The Bible and science can never contradict each other, because two truths cannot be contradictory.”

    Hm…

    “Science cannot really prove the age of the universe. All that scientists can do is speculate about the age of the universe by extrapolating from observed phenomena. No scientist alive today can say that he or she has first-hand information regarding the beginning of the universe.”

    Now we’re talking! however, I think that something got cut off on your post. I think you meant “extrapolating from observed phenomena and documented reproducible experimentation with consistent results.” Other than that, you are 100% correct, but unfortunately for not the reasons you may think.

    “The Bible tells us how old the universe is.” whawhaWHHAAA???!!

    So by your very own reasoning, the Bible and Science cannot contradict each other. Yet you provide an example of a pure contradiction. On one side, we have decades if not centuries of data regarding the physical laws of nature. One of these laws relates to the ultimate speed limit in the universe, the speed of light. Light can be slowed or altered using gravity fields or other applications of relativity, but can never go past 299,792,458 meters per second in a vaccuum environment.

    So, when measurements are made regarding the distance to nearby stars, it has been mathematically proven that (for example) Proxima Centauri is about 4 light-years away, meaning the light we would observe tonight has taken 4 years at the speed mentioned above (or maybe slower at times) to get to your retina. So, by using this measurement system, it has been determined that some stellar bodies we have observed are more than a million light-years away.

    So science may not have proven how old the universe is precisely, but it has proven how old it isn’t. It certainly isn’t 5000 years old.

    So on one hand we have reproducible verified data versus what is written in a manuscript thousands of years old, passed down originally by oral tradition, that you believe to be the Word Of God.

    Guess which one I’m signing on with.

    Not that your beliefs are necessarily wrong, I’m just not seeing it. Not buying it. Especially when we look at the history of the Church and science (Gallileo, anyone?)

    Once we realize that these “truths” do NOT generally agree, the argument becomes moot. You believe in a God who likes to play games with physical laws for some arcane reason, and Jabberwock, Janet and I, well, don’t.

    Now that this is out of the way, let’s go back to “You’re wrong!” “No you are!”

  12. In fact, because of relativity, everywhere in the universe is recieving radiation from the big bang, as it happened the light-years of the universe away.

  13. Thank you Joe and Janet
    Finally back on topic again I was beginning to get bored .Your both a little behind the curb though
    With the launching of the Hubble Telescope they are finding Galaxies 24 Million Light years away.
    That proves the speed of light big deal. Would God be bound by the speed of light?
    It most certainly does not prove the age of the universe I don’t believe man is bound by the speed of light. Man broke the sound barrier why cant men break the speed of light.
    Oh we may never see it in our lifetime. If you guys have a good science department at your College (or High school) then you know the speed of light is a measurement of distance not time.
    Modern science has made spectacular progress in unlocking the secrets of the universe and developing technology. These successes can dupe unthinking people into accepting errors.
    The Church has always promoted true science the church also teaches their can never be conflict between the truth of science and the truth of the faith, since all truth Comes from God, who can not contradict himself. In sound science, reason uses the tools of science to observe and measure the material universe. Authentic science gives us accurate information about the universe; however it is incapable of studying supernatural things.
    Real science leads an open minded scientist to God, the cause of the universe.
    Now there are exceptions to this one of the greatest astronomers of my time was Carl Sagan.He was an atheist and his arguments were superficial as well.
    We must always remember that being a great astronomer didn’t make him a great theologian .Keep in mind that the Catholic University in this Country and around the world has some of the finest science dept.Their are not Cal Tech or M.I.T but they are rated better than most state universities.
    Joe Coleman

  14. The speed of light is a measurement of speed, which is distance over time. A light-year is a measure of distance.
    Galaxy distances are always estimates, as are measurements of the age of the universe. Even an estimate is capable of disproving a 10,000-year-old universe… unless you just consider that an arbitrary time for God to have popped in and set everything running. That’s when I throw up my hands and say, fine! Sure! If you believe that, you can believe anything!
    Breaking the sound barrier and breaking the light barrier are two entirely different things. I enjoy a lot of science fiction in which the problems of faster-than-light travel are ignored, but I understand that part as fiction. I’m not going to discount that we’ll be able to do it (possibly only through wormholes) but I consider it mostly fantasy at present. Look up some basic relativistic physics. I’m sure you know Einstein has some interesting things to say on the topic of science, theology, and the limits of humanity (he was incapable of considering that the universe might be finite, though).

    I am aware of the long scientific tradition within the Catholic Church.
    You leave me trying to figure out where we disagree. Application? Why is it that atheists are capable of tolerating and understanding reasonably-held religious beliefs, but something about their pointing out the ridiculous parts in any Christian sect, even if it’s not your own, makes you defensive?

    Are you in a scientific field or planning to go into one?
    I feel like if we all actually knew each other our opinions would make perfect sense.
    Hi. I’m Janet. I’m a 21-year-old daughter of an agnostic and an atheist, both physicists. I go to art school but have taken several astronomy classes at major universities and consider it my second love.

    And you?

  15. “If you guys have a good science department at your College (or High school) then you know the speed of light is a measurement of distance not time.”

    The speed of light is neither a measurement of distance nor time, but a measure of velocity. ~3×10^8 meters per second. Notice that’s not in meters, but in meters per second, which shows it’s a rate of travel.

    I think you’re refering to a light year, which is indeed a measure of distance, equal to the distance that light would travel in one year.

  16. Hah, and you think we’re “behind the [curve]”? I think someone is well overdue for a physics class. Janet and Watt both did well in correcting your major errors. I mean, theoretically, we could be able to travel between distance A and B using some kind of gravity distortion faster than light is capable of moving, but that’s not exactly breaking the speed of light–it’s circumventing it.

    Not that it matters, of course, as you can always (and probably will) respond with a deus ex machina that nobody can argue against–not because it’s necessarily a “good argument” but because it’s incapable of being proved either way as it’s something that exists outside the realm of human capability for perception.

    What’s the point in believing anything at all? I mean, no, an all-powerful God wouldn’t be bound at all by the speed of light. Then again, I can also interpret that by “six days”, the Bible means that God created everything six days ago from this very moment, exactly as it is, and just implanted memories and evidence of our existence prior to that time. Can you disprove this? I certainly can’t, because God could easily have made it happen like that, being all-powerful.

    So if God intended to fool us, then why not be fooled? If he really wants to make our observable world appear this way, and really wants to make observable evidence that withstands repeated testing somehow “inaccurate” to some reality we’re incapable of perceiving, then what’s the point of ever thinking anything at all? God gave us brains as some kind of big joke?

    How about this: outside each of our bodies is nothing, and our perception of any of the “world” around us is just God directly manipulating our sensory receptors. Anything we think we see or feel or smell is what God wants us to.

    Oh, and by the way, your views seem somewhat in conflict with those of mother church: One of the Pope’s top scientists recently dismissed Intelligent Design as being completely unacceptable in the world of science, claiming it should be limited to only religious and philosophical discussion. And the Catholic church in general has had a pretty positive attitude toward evolution–just look at some of the things JP II said about it.

  17. Thank you
    Eric and Janet for the clarification. What I should have wrote was light year is measurement of distance. Not the speed of light which as Eric wrote is a� measurement of velocity�
    Now to answer your questions:
    Janet Writes (You leave me trying to figure out where we disagree. Application? Why is it that atheists are capable of tolerating and understanding reasonably-held religious beliefs, but something about their pointing out the ridiculous parts in any Christian sect, even if it’s not your own, makes you defensive?)
    Beats me Janet I’m only saying God and Science can not contradict each other. .I’m not being defencive if you read all of my posts I make my case without resorting to name calling, as some of your earlier post said about me. So who is being defensive? As far as ridiculous parts of Christianity, what do you consider the ridiculous aspects?
    If you read my post the aspects you think ridiculous I thought I addressed.
    Let me try again
    1. The bible is NOT a science book.
    Thru out the Bible the earth is constantly looked at as flat, somebody on this site mentioned Galileo. Galileo was devout Galileo said “The Bible tells us how to get to heaven; it does not tell us how the heavens move. That’s sound advice.

    2. The bible was written in the language of its day.
    This is why it should not be taken literally. That is why good universities with good theological department are well grounded in the Use of Aramaic ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew. No serious student of theology would take a Jack Chick publication seriously.
    3. The Bible is not all inclusive, that is does not have everything that God knows in it.
    God’s knowledge is infinite. The Bible has a 1st page and last it is not infinite. The Bible itself makes no such claim. The Catholic Church makes no such claim. The church views the Bible as the inspired writings of God. That is to say its authors had divine inspiration.

    Janet Writes: Are you in a scientific field or planning to go into one?
    I feel like if we all actually knew each other our opinions would make perfect sense.
    Hi. I’m Janet. I’m a 21-year-old daughter of an agnostic and an atheist, both physicists. I go to art school but have taken several astronomy classes at major universities and consider it my second love.
    That’s very kind of you an improvement over your 1st post which I will overlook. No I am not in a scientific discipline. I’m 45 years old born West Philadelphia 8 years in the U.S Navy 5 years at the shipyard 13 years with the Railroad. Not once did I ever pullout a Bible to make a ship repair or the repair of Railroad equipment (see #1&#3). I hope that finally my point has been made. So I don’t have to keep rewriting the same Thing, and we can move to other things. Such as the questions on the inquisition, reformation and all the other questions that popped up. One question I do have Janet why not go into science?
    It’s a very challenging and rewarding field .I’m sure your parents would agree.
    Jabberworks Writes What’s the point in believing anything at all? I mean, no, an all-powerful God wouldn’t be bound at all by the speed of light. Then again, I can also interpret that by “six days�, the Bible means that God created everything six days ago from this very moment, exactly as it is, and just implanted memories and evidence of our existence prior to that time. Can you disprove this? I certainly can’t, because God could easily have made it happen like that, being all-powerful:
    This is a classic example of theological ignorance, you said you were raised Catholic this should be a no brainier. The 6 days in the creation story has nothing to do with creation. It’s the demand God places on the Jews to keep holy the Sabbath the 7th day.(see#2} Smart I like Smart ass is irritating Which is what your doing with your Bumble Bee God. As well as your ridiculous analogy of implanted memories. Juvenile!
    1. Jabberworks writes So if God intended to fool us, then why not be fooled? If he really wants to make our observable world appear this way, and really wants to make observable evidence that withstands repeated testing somehow “inaccurate� to some reality we’re incapable of perceiving, then what’s the point of ever thinking anything at all? God gave us brains as some kind of big joke?
    This is straight up stupid you show me any religion that profess not to use the brains God gave us. God is not fooling you kid your fooling yourself with convoluted logic.(See #3)
    1. Jabberworks writes Oh, and by the way, your views seem somewhat in conflict with those of mother church: One of the Pope’s top scientists recently dismissed Intelligent Design as being completely unacceptable in the world of science, claiming it should be limited to only religious and philosophical discussion. And the Catholic church in general has had a pretty positive attitude toward evolution–just look at some of the things JP II said about it.
    Dead wrong don’t you wish. If your talking the September 14 1998 Fides et Ratio encyclical. The Pope stresses the need for sound philosophy. “Good philosophy enables us to understand the faith more deeply, and to recognize contemporary errors more clearly. “It also enables us to find the problems of human existence. The pope says there are some theories are compatible with church teaching and others that are not. The one theory that is clearly not compatible is the Idea the human race evolved from dead matter thru purely a random processes. See Michael J Behe’s Book Darwin’s black box The biochemical challenge to evolution. One of the greatest molecular biologist, and hard core evolutionist Dr. Francis Crick (who with Dr James Watson discovered the structure of D.N.A) has seen the writing on the wall .He recognizes the impossibility of dead matter forming a living organism through random processes.
    You ask me a lot of question now let me ask you one. You said you were raised Catholic. Define the corporal works of mercy? This is an easy question if find yourself having to Google the answer. That tells me you over looking the Churches primary teaching and only looking for errors to back up your atheist views.
    Joe Coleman

  18. “The one theory that is clearly not compatible is the Idea the human race evolved from dead matter thru purely a random processes. See Michael J Behe’s Book Darwin’s black box The biochemical challenge to evolution.”

    Can you tell us the important part of the book? I’m not going to go read it just to respond to this :). Also, there are a couple things to consider. For one, there was an experiment done about 50 years ago (the Miller-Urey experiment, if you’re interested) where they took the chemicals that were available on earth around 3.5 billion years ago (basically, a low oxygen environment). Over the course of a few days, applying light and some electricity (there was a lot of lightening) the simple atmospheric gases reacted to form the building blocks of life. Amino acids were produced. Other experiments have shown rna bases can be formed in the same way. So, before life existed, there were amino acids, and nueclic acids (building blocks of life). You’re saying it’s somehow impossible to get life from these? I know you may not know HOW life first assembled, but 600 years ago they didn’t know the universe couldn’t be orbiting around earth. Your (and my) lack of understanding does not prove that it’s false.

    “One of the greatest molecular biologist, and hard core evolutionist Dr. Francis Crick (who with Dr James Watson discovered the structure of D.N.A) has seen the writing on the wall .He recognizes the impossibility of dead matter forming a living organism through random processes.”

    Linus Pauling, the ONLY person to receive two Nobel prizes fully (ie, not shared) did amazing work in quantum mechanics, and basically described what a chemical bond is. He also argued that DNA structure contains 3 helices with the backbone phosphates connected by salt bridges (this is wrong) and that massive doses of vitamin C will protect against the common cold (this is also wrong). Just because Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA (and, as an aside, if you actually look into how they did this, and how they stole other people’s work, you wouldn’t be very impressed) doesn’t mean you should take whatever he says as absolute truth.

    As another example, here are some things about Watson (from wikepedia):

    “Like his late colleague, Francis Crick, Watson is an outspoken atheist, known for his frank opinions on politics, religion, and the role of science in society. He has been considered to hold a number of controversial views.”

    “He has also repeatedly said in public lectures “that if the gene (for homosexuality) were discovered and a woman decided not to give birth to a child that may have a tendency to become homosexual, she should be able to abort the fetus.”‘

    So you agree with him since he discovered the structure of DNA with Crick and is therefore all knowing?

    Come back to me with an explanation of WHY, not WHO. I don’t care WHO says something scientific, I care about WHAT they say and if their arguments are correct.

  19. Eric some problems posting think this is what you want.(In his statement, the Pope was careful to point out that it is better to talk about “theories of evolution” rather than a single theory. The distinction is crucial. Indeed, until I completed my doctoral studies in biochemistry, I believed that Darwin’s mechanism — random mutation paired with natural selection — was the correct explanation for the diversity of life. Yet I now find that theory incomplete.

    In fact, the complex design of the cell has provoked me to stake out a distinctly minority view among scientists on the question of what caused evolution. I believe that Darwin’s mechanism for evolution doesn’t explain much of what is seen under a microscope. Cells are simply too complex to have evolved randomly; intelligence was required to produce them.

    I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word “evolution” carries many associations. Usually it means common descent — the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn’t explain the vast differences among species.

    That’s where Darwin’s mechanism comes in. “Evolution” also sometimes implies that random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life. The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings. Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species. Over time, repetition of the process resulted in great changes — and, indeed, wholly different animals.

    That’s the theory. A practical difficulty, however, is that one can’t test the theory from fossils. To really test the theory, one has to observe contemporary change in the wild, in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.

    Darwinian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes. Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns. Likewise, the ratio of dark- to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light-colored moths more visible to predators. Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics. These are all clear examples of natural selection in action. But these examples involve only one or a few mutations, and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor. Yet to account for all of life, a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures. That has not yet been demonstrated.

    Darwin’s theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell. Many cellular systems are what I term “irreducibly complex.” That means the system needs several components before it can work properly. An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner, gradually improving its function. You can’t catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

    An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works — a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.

    The intracellular transport system is also quite complex. Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments; supplies, including enzymes and proteins, have to be shipped between these compartments. Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks, and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination. Other proteins act as loading docks, opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment.

    Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell — the very basis of life — is staggeringly complex. But doesn’t science already have answers, or partial answers, for how these systems originated? No. As James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, wrote, “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

    A few scientists have suggested non-Darwinian theories to account for the cell, but I don’t find them persuasive. Instead, I think that the complex systems were designed — purposely arranged by an intelligent agent.

    Whenever we see interactive systems (such as a mousetrap) in the everyday world, we assume that they are the products of intelligent activity. We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We know of no other mechanism, including Darwin’s, which produces such complexity. Only intelligence does.

    Of course, I could be proved wrong. If someone demonstrated that, say, a type of bacteria without a flagellum could gradually produce such a system, or produce any new, comparably complex structure, my idea would be neatly disproved. But I don’t expect that to happen.

    Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation. That assessment is premature. But even if it is true, I would not be troubled. I don’t want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct explanation.

    Pope John Paul spoke of “theories of evolution.” Right now it looks as if one of those theories involves intelligent design.

    Copyright © 1997 Michael Behe. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
    File Date: 11.04.96
    The author has a site that I attempted to post this could be my problem.The authors site goes into more detail for academics and also counter arguments.

    Joe Coleman

  20. Huh. Well, the first thing I’d like to say is “Go, Watt!” You responded to the biochemical science topics much better than I’m (or most other people, for that matter, are) capable of doing. Thank you.

    So, Joe, I’m fooling myself with convoluted logic such as, uh, what, finding observable evidence that has been repeatedly testable to be at least somewhat trustworthy?

    Re: the Pope and evolution: According to the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, the Pope–John Paul II–said evolution was, and this is a quote (and not a mistranslation–I’ve heard about that defense, and upon investigation it was concluded that this is, indeed, the actual quote, accurately translated into English), “more than a hypothesis”. And one of the current Pope’s top scientists has declared Intelligent Design bunk as science. So if you support Intelligent Design, you’re in conflict with the Vatican, and if you dismiss evolution entirely, you’re in conflict with JP II. Guess my, erm, “wish”, as you put it, was granted, at least in part.

    Here’s a little (read: gaping) hole in your logic: As we can’t, as you said, take everything in the Bible literally because of problems with language transitions and such, then how can you claim that you know what “the Word of God” truly is? Also, you say that religion and science cannot contradict each other. Why do you assume that any conflict means science is in error and not religion?

    (Also, if the Bible is only “divinely inspired”, it’s not the Word of God, but the words of those inspired by God.)

    My implication of an unprovable, all-powerful entity that differs from yours (please, if you could, describe what you think God looks like, and I’ll tell you that your description is arbitrarily silly, ridiculous, ill-inspired, et cetera) is no more juvenile than any other unprovable entity or character in any theology. Is the Hindu Vishnu somehow immature and juvenile? How about Ganesh–an elephant with a bunch of extra arms?

    I find it amusing that the only thing you can do to counter an actual argument against arbitrary belief in things that one cannot prove is to call it “immature”. Maybe I should do that for everything you say, too. I’m just as capable. Please, if you would, tell me WHY you feel it to be ignorant. What about it makes it “juvenile”? Don’t just toss out words. There’s plenty I find silly or ill-conceived with some of the things you say–I at least have the courtesy to explain WHY I find them so. I feel one-word rebuttal is a poor form of argument, and renders the entire response meaningless. Essentially, you could replace “juvenile” or “ignorant” with any other similar condescending modifier, and it would mean just as much. Why not call it “stupid”? How about “doodie-headed”? Talk about juvenile.

    Anyway, here’s the be-all, end-all explanation for why Intelligent Design isn’t science: It makes the conclusion by proxy that God exists. God’s existence is an unprovable, and Intelligent Design makes a definite conclusion about an unprovable. Any “theory” that makes a by-proxy conclusion about an unprovable is simply not science. Q.E.D. Go ahead and teach it in theology classes, or philosophy classes, or whatever, but it does not belong in actual science because it cannot be, by definition, science.

  21. Sorry about the comments problems, by the way. Every so often, the server goes a little, well, “malfunctiony”. We’ll hopefully be switching to a different setup soon, which should resolve some of the issues we’ve been having.

    My advice is to save whatever you’re doing in some kind of temporary document (or at the very least copy all of it) before trying to submit it, so as to avoid losing your post.

  22. Thank GOD that God sent Joe Coleman instead of Jack Chick to respond to this. Jabberwock you must admit that would not have turned out well. Jack would have a heart attack, hate more, and I’m not sure it’d influence you the right way either (after a few rounds at least).

    There’s a lot to be said for Janet’s comment about how things might turn out if she were talking in person to Mr. Coleman. I think by ignoring how the medium might affect things, or how we might use the medium we might be feeding a certain type of pattern.. be it our own habit, or just some generic flaming addiction, or maybe it is a response to the insulation we feel. We take advantage of it but we resent it, the distance, not to mention the delay. It is even worse sometimes when we try to “interact” (as much as Janet’s “how do you do” was applaudable it seems half-hearted, because a better format would be at least a chat line where people can interact more back-and-forth instead of so selectively strategically pissing on eachother). I know that longer posts can encourage thinking things out instead of getting all heated like direct discussion can do, but it also enables lots of tricks.

    Joe Coleman, you may not call names but you’re definitely pulling tricks of superiority and taking snide tones. Make no mistake others were too — Janet’s being the most obvious. I can see how refreshed you were that she turned that around, and I sense that really that’s what you’d like a little more of from Jabberwock. However I also sense that you could stand to have a little more faith in Jabberwock.. you guys are mostly reflecting back what you apprehend in eachother. Joe is resenting being cast or put into a type, and Jabberwock probably doesn’t realize where he trips up, and begins to step from Joe into “general Christian type”. Interacting in person with Joe might help that.

    As for the cursing: yes it’s pepper.. the problem is that it is a pepper of verbal violence. It IS really effective, I like it myself. It’s good punctuation and it’s good for humor. It’s great for “preaching to the choir”. But it’s a cultural thing and some people are distracted by it. I think it can often show a lack of patience. In other words, understand and accept now! Be hated if you disagree, even though I didn’t say I’d hate you.. I’m ANGRY and you’re right to fear mistreatment from me. Not intentionally but because I’m angry, so watch the fuck out!

    However I don’t see Jabberwock cursing Joe like that, which is part of what gives me the sense that Jabberwock is willing to adapt his communication to better communicate! He’s doing a fantastic job at talking about MEAT. Joe is repeatedly skipping and picking around the meat and ignoring exactly what Jabberwock most needs a response to, and responding to whatever is easiest to misinterpret!

    Jabberwock does not extend his hand but he (she? I haven’t really checked) definitely reflects back some of what he’s given. Jab expects Joe to assume a friendliness based on a pre-understood general mutual zest for TRUTH. If Joe cannot do that, then perhaps Joe is not so interested in truth. The more Joe takes it easy the more Jabberwock can respond in kind. And maybe not selectively ignore Jabberwock or say things like “finally back on topic again I was beginning to get bored” when as I say Jab is plenty on topic. The speed of light is a bit of a sidetrack! It seemed like a game, to thank Joe#2 and Janet, sort of setting them against Jab like that.

    Yet it tells a truth! Joe wants a bit of connection, and wants to establish a positive rapport (if only to set this in opposition to Jabber) because that’s what he wants & feels is being withheld!

    Joe needs help coming from a vastly different community than Jabberwock, and Jabberwock needs help seeing that.

    Maybe this relationship is more meat than the subject at hand, but I’ll get to some official meat anyways. Sorta. It still has a lot to do with relationships and agendas and all of that.

    About this “principle of causality”, I agree, I think, in principle! HOWEVER, I think Joe is trying a bit too hard (after being coaxed toward inferiority) to elevate things and elevate his speech. This is part of the dogma of science. People highly esteem pre-established phrases that sound important. This is parasitic “truth”. The principle of causality is proposed as something already proven and solid. This appeals possibly to Jabberwocky’s pride, and fear that he is somehow forgetting something clearly established in the “world of reason and science”. Jabberwock responds with “where are you getting this?” But that isn’t enough! Where are you getting this and does that alone make it right?

    On some level it is right that “as above so below” .. “as before, so after [though possibly in a vastly different form!]”. It is not rock hard by any means so it should not be wielded like a weapon, but shared, offered. Jabberwock should have the opportunity to recognize on a basic level that intelligence had to BE something, always. Whether in another form or not.. it had to take form from some other FORM of intelligence. If it preceded man and goats and algae, it had to be something other than man, goats, algae, yet still essentially the same.

    A scientific analog to this would be conservation of energy, or conservation of mass. So we could say anything “real”, if intelligence can be so described, must be maintained in a closed system.

    But Joe! There’s something I have never heard advocates of science say, something I always thought was sorely missing when the complaint is made about “blind chance” or random events. This idea of scientists proposing “Blind Chance” is a careless if not willfully ignorant misperception. I know that sounds harsh. Maybe it is. I’m trying, Joe. If you hear evolution described, and you decide that what they are saying is that men and men’s intelligence appeared by CHANCE, you either were not listening (out of fear, boredom, or whatever) or you are in opposition to truth, and are trying to deceive (out of fear, boredom, or whatever). Or someone really dumb, perhaps a “dogmatist” of science, some sort of proud pseudoscientific nincompoop.

    Joe.. first of all, when you claim boredom, let’s get real. Jabberwock, well, jabbered a lot, and I know you don’t have patience for so much meat, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t meat. There WAS real meat, and he wasn’t even peppering it with profanity or meanness (I’m thinking of his post just before the whole speed-of-light thing began). Maybe he was getting too wordy, and I’m not trying to insult you but clearly you are not as much an academic! You don’t read as much and it may be a little thick to just skim through. Nor should you have to be an academic, nor should you try to show that you are. Yes you can think, and no you don’t have to spell right to think right (though it can be distracting, and it can sometimes cast doubt on how careful a thinker you are). But you don’t have to prove you’re a pro, or try to upstage him. These shots about his “basic catholic knowledge” are really off-base, really off-topic, and gain neither of you anything. Why should he have to know them, and what does it prove if he doesn’t know them. This is just information.. learned or not. You shouldn’t shame him with what-you-know, and he shouldn’t shame you. If he goes through too much and it puts you out, well that’s ok. Take your time. If you think he’s going through a lot just to tire you, and you’re not interested, then admit it.. don’t just keep going on and feeding your general hunger to oppose or be right. Even if he feeds his. Muscle-flexing is pointless and besides the point.

    Jabberwock I’m terribly sorry if you’re a girl.. consider the pronoun generic.

    OK: Evolution is not chance. It has something to do with chance but I would NEVER call it “blind” chance. I don’t think such a thing even exists. BUT let’s say it did. In fact lets say a massive form of it exists: Blind Chance Supreme and Absolute (let’s call it BCSA). Within it is, potentially ANYTHING, everything. Would you say that, given my definition, human intelligence (and higher) exist within it? Of course!
    Should we worship BCSA? of course not.. Well, if you want to, I guess you could…
    But what if there was then, a God, who, with his infinite intelligence, could IMAGINE the BCSA, could examine it, and find mankind within it? Or planets, or eggs.
    What is the nature of his intelligence?? Wait, isn’t he part of BCSA? He is “THE TRUTH”, yes, but isn’t the truth one of these things within Blind Chance? Yes yes yes, it is the perfect one, it is the true one, and the rest is all BULL, wouldn’t you agree?

    Please take a breather now, if this seems tiring. The point is that God made man OUT of something. God made everything out of something. God conceived of these things. God SELECTED, he chose, from his imagination, from his infinite knowledge, what he wanted.

    What is that intelligence? How can we even grasp it? I’ll tell you how. You can’t. Stop trying. Stop thinking and explaining and look around, breathe, and live life. It is all around. Just as you say, scientific truth and biblical truth cannot contradict. Well I think you’re on the right track but that’s not exactly right. That which IS true in the bible cannot contradict that which IS true in science. Science is NOT truth, the bible is NOT truth. The truth is privately interpreted and received, and we must always be humble about thinking we have authority on it. or the catholic church has authority on it. Or any body of scientific study, or any “big name” scientist. None of these things are truth, and none of these things are infallible. Truth is one thing, and it is already ok without you believing it. It is merely your opportunity to enjoy it as much as possible. Believing in it and seeking it is its own reward.

    Let’s go back.. ok so you have a Stone. Is a sculpture hidden inside? What difference does it make, that’s just a matter of thinking! The point is the sculpture will be made out of that stone by chiseling away at whats there.

    Likewise in nature are all the raw materials, all that is necessary for intelligence and beauty. Is it “there”? Um, no, not really, but sorta. It’s there in a different form. It’s potential. And also it’s “going to happen” but it hasn’t yet. Life is going to form, and YES it is due to intelligence, in my book. There is stone and there WILL be an intelligent chiseling. WHO holds the chisel?

    Here’s the kicker for me, and the part where people either agree, or shut down and fight it like I’m hurting their God. The chisel is REALITY, AS ONE WHOLE. The chisel is every part of truth. The chisel is science, the chisel is nature, and the chisel is spirit, exactly insofar at is true and real. All of these things move according to principle, to pattern. That total pattern is beyond us at the moment, but science is pinning down a good deal of it, as far as the math, the numbers, the verifiable reproduceable parts. Think about it! We are discovering equations that reflect reality, reflects what seems to actually happen. What do you think all these things add up to, but INTELLIGENCE! Where did the number pi (ya know, 3.14159…) come from??? How can it be that that particular number is simply “part of truth!” Why is it!!! I don’t know but it definitely is part of truth, at least as far as we know it, in our limited application of it, this number works. And what about all these other constants? Or E=mc squared (if that turns out to be true), or gravity as we know it, etc etc. This huge system of interacting things, all governed by laws which we are trying to discover. All of this is the presence of an intelligence. Now whether or not that intelligence is “delighted”, whether it is aware or not, I will not force the point (I believe it is), it is true enough for me that it is by definition an intelligent universe, an intelligent reality, simply because it has a law. The law may be infinitely complex, may even change, but it follows laws in the way it changes. All of this structure, this pattern IS God.

    Now in the context of evolving life – what is the chisel?! It is DEATH.. DEATH according to the law. It is not random chance!
    Life springs up according to the law, and YES lots of “random” things spring up. But they’re not random. They spring up because they WORK. They live! They reproduce! It’s not chance! Why would you say that!
    Neither do they die by chance. They die by the same law which brings them forth.

    [I apologize self consciously for overusing the word “law” and also for the exclamation points]

    Which ones die? Stay with me here. Keep in mind a pattern. Don’t resort to God’s decision, YES it’s God’s choice, God’s choice is inescapable but for the moment we are in the realm of thinking and reasons.

    I am asking HOW God chisels, and what does God chisel away. God is Reality. Reality is Death. Death takes those away which did not produce more of themselves. Death leaves behind those which most succesfully did that. Those which “worked” the best.

    This process IS INTELLIGENT. It is intelligence springing directly, logically, out of truth and true events following the pattern dictated by the laws of reality. Intelligence is in the background (in the form of law) and is SPRINGING FORTH all manner of life. All that would die is dying and passing away leaving only more life.

    Natural selection really only says that in condensed non-overexcited less metaphysical way. Really it says almost nothing. I would say it this way “That which tends to exist, will tend to exist”. You can follow the next step there for yourself, and put to rest the combatively motivated statement that it is pure theory. Take that which already exists (no matter how it got there), and find the things which tend to exist best (most effectively). Notice how the other things by definition tend to fall away, leaving only those things most likely to exist. Now start again, with what you’ve got left.

    All you have to do to explain (and I don’t mean “explain away” because I do not believe that explanation should weaken our innocence, this is a temporary thing to be overcome) — all you have to do to account for intelligence is realize, intelligently that intelligent things tend to exist because they find a way. The have the ability to reflect reality, to anticipate reality, to work with reality, to continue to exist. The more intelligent you are the more you do so. What about venus fly traps? Well THEY are not intelligent but their design is. That’s what I mean. THere is intelligence in the most brutal beast, if it IS an effective, surviving design. This has nothing to do with rightness, but I do believe that as intelligence increases, beauty abounds. I do also believe ugliness is welcome too though. Intelligence leads us into a wider and wider space, full of greater peace, truth, and beauty, but also greater resistence, greater ugliness, greater conflict. A wider range. Natural selection is merely saying that the whole reality, by itself, is already a machine that self-develops! There is nothing wrong or counter-religious about it. Whether it “is” God, or simply a “reflection” of God (by the principle of causality), it is self-sufficient and complete. How could it mirror God and be otherwise. If it is anything short of God, it is only missing DELIGHT. But here I am to begin filling that particular gap. Join me if you want. I may forget tomorrow, but I hope you keep doing it.

    Ok: About this tendency to override anything with “God is not limited by ____ so it doesn’t apply”. That’s just cheap! It is true enough, ok? But let’s get on with it. Either we are reasoning or we are not! If we are not.. let go of trying to argue! Fair enough: simply stop thinking and commune with God, pray, or whatever.. but if you’re going to reason, then reason. If God is unlimited by any factors which otherwise constitute REALITY as we know it, then forgettaboutit! God is somehow beyond God (God reality), so nevermind even trying to know him in thought. He can probably only be known through direct experience. you’d have to be him, or trust your relatives or trust a book because hey, why not.

    On a related subject, and Joe’s saying that God is not bound by the speed of light. Well, that’s interesting thinking… Who decided the speed of light if not God? I mean I agree he’s not “bound” by it. I would more nearly say he’s bound up IN IT. It’s guided by him. I think it is very telling that you would try to shoot down Joe #2’s statement, whether you “misspoke” about light years or not. You clearly were not understanding what he was saying. It is fairly valid, I mean IF we are going to reason. Yes if God transcends all boundaries, never mind. Language and communication are about defining, which is about creating boundries between what we mean and don’t mean. Truth is (in some sense) about defining what is NOT true. A God that transcends all boundaries is something I cannot share with you here. I don’t see why you’d try to make him look dumb in such a cheap way. IT’s not that you’re bad for doign so but let’s find the truth.. WHY did you want to.. what was your motivation? Are you afraid of something. What do you really care if the universe turns out to be really realy old. Does that really destroy God for you?

    Even if you misspoke and meant light-years, still what were you saying?

    Everyone, I think the important thing is not that the speed of light is a measurement of velocity, but what that means.. a measurement of space AND time, combined. Light speed and its impenetrability (at least by means that we understand so far) is a fundamental truth about the relationship between space and time. Therefore again, it’s strange speak to talk about God being even fully separate from that. It is totally different from sound speed. Sound has to do with the vibrations moving through matter. Light speed has more to do with ANYTHING, moving through empty space, or blank reality (as we know it). Even if it were absolutely unlimited — we being shaped bounded temporary creatures would gradually come to know SOME concrete number as the speed of light. It would simply dictate other speeds in relation to it. All of space and time would BEND to accomodate the truth that that number is the highest speed. In other words it appears that God himself would make sure that 299,742,458 = infinity at least when it came to the relative passage of spatial and temporal durations. Whoah big-wordedness. Sorry… not trying to be sarcastic either, I just didn’t know how else to say that.

    About this bumblebee thing. Give it up Joe. Ok it may seem insulting, but you really have to recognize something about reasoning. You can’t just jump ship like this. OF COURSE it is unreasonable, that was Jabberwock’s point. YES the Christian idea of God is relatively much more sane maybe… and I KNOW your idea of God is more sane than the bumblebee thing. Jabberwock knows that too and I dont think he meant any insult at all, although he’s taking a sort of wild silly tone. That’s also part of a younger culture. I love it myself but I know it puts you out. Just like the whole man, goats, and eggs thing did. Well sorry but YES, the point is to say that, whether the Christian God is somewhat reasonable, or “carries a truth” or not, the problem Jabberwock is addressing is that ACCEPTANCE of that God has nothing to do with reasoning. Yes you may be able to use some reasoning to convince people of it, or parts of it. But it may well be flawed reasoning, at which point Christians have to resort to something else, either fear, or a blanket explanation of how God “transcends” all the normal limitations of logic. Sure maybe but so does this nutty bumblebee! LAUGH JOE! Now realize and accept Jabberwock doesnt believe in the bumblebee nor is he about to. Because it is without reasoning. YES your god has deeper reasons than the bumblebee. But The deepest reason has no allegiance to reason and truth, at least as you have yet shared.

    And like I say, things can indeed “carry a truth”. This is the most the Bible can do. You’ve already said it’s in the language of the day. But also its possible to just plain be mistaken, no? I mean it conveys NON literal truths. It gives a number, but that number really just has a historical explanation, or maybe it is intended to just make the story have a concreteness. Which serves to make the story more real so its core truth can be felt. The rest is details that may change. So really, ok fine it was inspired by God. Me too. I might even contain more truth than the bible. Turn to me for guidance. I also contain contradictions.. mistakes.. things that will have to be reinterpreted by those that understand me. But I’ll tell you what.. even my greatest flaws and failures contain truth! Properly intepreted, all things about me are in accordance with truth. Hitler’s crimes tell me something REALLY IMPORTANT about MY heart, whether he was a “good man” or not. Likewise the bible is of great importance. And no, Joe, I am not likening Hitler to the Bible or playing some sort of trick. Except it is true.. both contain truth and are fallible.

    The bible is much “better”… I don’t even bother to ask the question though, the question is how I use it. The truth is in me, the compass for truth is in me.. whether I’m using the worst of men to tell my story, or the greatest of scriptures. I’ve got to use them right.. and ultimately I’m to blame for my mistakes.

    Now finally… this honestly is baffling and if you can only see it or have it turned back on you maybe you would understand.

    Jabberwock is saying that it SOUNDS like you’re saying God intends us to be fooled. His reasoning is sound.. because the idea is that we are put in a world that is different than reasoning itself tells us it is. From outside, the creator has created men whose most informed, verifiable version of the truth is TOTALLY WRONG. Furthermore we are in great danger if we do not FIND the right version and believe it on faith.

    Jabberwock has NOT said that God is a trickster. Jabberwock has NOT said that religions say that. Jabberwock merely says that YOU, Joe Coleman, SEEM to be saying that. He wants you to RESPOND and say how it is otherwise. It’s an opportunity. And it’s not your license to insult him worse than any other point so far (“straight up stupid”)… not to mention resorting to calling him KID, and telling him he’s fooling himself. Hes not using convoluted logic at all, he is asking you a question. If God purposely put us in a situation where the soundest belief is nowhere near the right one, what kind of intentions does God have for us? Why would you imagine it to be like this. Why would you guess, or assume, that it must be different than what it appears? If you are NOT saying God was trying to fool us, what are you saying. Many would say he is “testing” us. Or maybe you are testing Jabberwock.. to see if he will abandon logic and just be mean like you are beginning to be (because of reasons I promise I do understand). Maybe God is just making us duke it out so that at some point we throw up our hands and begin to re-examine our methods, our thinking, our connection with eachother and with God through each other.

    Please do not try to pretend you didn’t know that Jabberwock was not saying the words you put in his mouth. I know you know otherwise.. and others do to, it’s just that they’re tired and they will overlook it and then it just slips by as yet another trick. I’m sorry I don’t mean to pick on you but your tricks are the most transparent. Well Janet was transparently mean back there too.. there wasn’t even a trick to it. I’m glad she extended a hand.

    You have yet to address the question, and I dont know if it’s because you’re afraid, or just tired of reading all this stuff or what, but if you’re going to bother, bother authentically. Let me put it a funner way. Why would God create maturity, instead of sharing with us the entire process which unfolded? What would it even mean if the universe or the Earth were already “matured”. Did he not have to at least in a split second ENVISION this maturation in his mind? Did he not even experience the delight, of the FULL BLOOM of life from nothingness.. the entire process, the pattern? How could he not, when that entire process (whatever it may be) is necessarily the truth, is necessarily part of him. Where are we NOW but still in the mind of God? Is there something that would “make” it more real? If all of the time leading up to 6000 years ago was an illusion passing in 5 seconds, what does that even mean?

    It still is our story, it still is our full origin from nothingness. As long as we’re speaking and reasoning, it is most suitable to call that how it appears. Science is not truth but a method. There is no reason to blindly trust scientists, nor blindly doubt them. They may fail, may be proud, may be dogmatic, may get stuck on things that turn out to be wrong. That’s life. If you want to find out a explanation of how it all arose, and aren’t comfortable trusting what “they say” then dont trust them! But to really find out you’ll have get an education. If this education turns out to be flawed, find where it departs from truth. You should be able to discover an offshoot which corrects this. If not, found it. If it’s really messed up (our educational system) it may take a long time before you can ascend the whole staircase back to a creation story. You CANT just defer to a bible and you CANT just defer to a science book, unless you admit that it’s only a temporary belief so you can get on with more important questions, like say your direct relationship with God (independent of origin stories).

    This is a long message. Don’t pick and choose, don’t take out of context, don’t insult. It’s not necessary. Don’t respond unless you’re going to fully digest, even for a moment imagine you thought it, imagine conversation/discussion is a cooperative form of a single being thinking. You can depart from what I say but depart genuinely and with a respect for the third party of truth among us, which cannot be owned.

  23. Jabber
    Technical 1st
    1. Sorry about the comments problems, by the way. Every so often, the server goes a little, well, “malfunctiony�. We’ll hopefully be switching to a different setup soon, which should resolve some of the issues we’ve been having.
    My advice is to save whatever you’re doing in some kind of temporary document (or at the very least copy all of it) before trying to submit it, so as to avoid losing your post.

    I‘m almost positive it’s my end not your set up. Bear with me everybody remember , I write faster with a pen and paper than with a keyboard. Ok I will try to send a link which Eric requested for further reading. Let’s hope it works
    http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html
    Joe Coleman

  24. Josh writes
    1. This is a long message. Don’t pick and choose, don’t take out of context, don’t insult. It’s not necessary. Don’t respond unless you’re going to fully digest, even for a moment imagine you thought it, imagine conversation/discussion is a cooperative form of a single being thinking. You can depart from what I say but depart genuinely and with a respect for the third party of truth among us, which cannot be owned.
    Josh that’s a tall order, you have to remember I write faster with a pen and paper with less mistakes than with a keyboard It ‘s not that I don’t read everything. I read every thing Jabber writes as well as everyone else. Also I went to the post Jabber asked me to go. I didn’t just skim it .Your post is very long Notice posts 9 thru 13 that’s a lot to answer. I’m not ducking Jabbers comments because I have no answer .Look at the questions. The inquisitions Crusades the reformation Church doctrine.
    These are all deep topics that I will be happy to discus what’s the big hurry?
    We are talking about the general topic of can science disprove God .I say no.
    Now look at post 11 thru 13. I believe I answered those posts on the General topic. Look at question 20. It’s direct to the point and easy to answer I’m not saying you will agree with the answer.
    I’m here by myself your asking me to do the impossible. As far as name calling I’ve been toped in spades. Jabber you think I’m ignoring you? Jabber has not used profanity when writing to me. We were talking about a different area of his site.
    As I also wrote I have no problem with bad language. I just think it has to be in the right context. I use profanity all the time. You wrote you’re not academic. I never said I was I’m doing the best I can. Now I haven’t answered all your questions or addressed the whole post. I’m aware of it but I did read the whole thing.
    Now I have not answered any of Jabbers post dated today but read it all Trust me I’m doing the best I can. Theirs no way I can respond to all you want.
    This post you are reading was started at 6:30 PM P.S.T its now 7:45 PM .I hope to be back to the keyboard tomorrow to respond to Jabber. Now my wife and I have things to do for tomorrows Thanksgiving.
    Joe Coleman

  25. Ah, before I read or reply to any of this, I just wanted to let you know that any comments with URLs in them are sent to moderation before they’re accepted. I had a problem with spammers a while back, but the threat seems to have subsided, so I can probably change that.

    Sorry.

  26. Josh, I may not agree with everything you say (where we disagree I can consider it as supposition), but I will defend to the death your right to say it so intelligently. Bravo. Are you Jesus?

    I’m glad someone came in and pointed out the ugly way we were debating. My inability to communicate or take even my own opinions seriously tends to discord discourse, so I apologize for the distractions I’ve been tossing in, including this one.

    Joe, I’m not in science because I’m a failure as an intelligent being and as a person. Okay? Okay.

  27. Actually Janet you bring more to the topic than you realize. You’re an art student how many PRIMARY colors are there? I have been out of school for along so I don’t remember the answerer .However with scientific advances we have discovered colors outside the spectrum (inferred ultraviolet) .That can only be seen with special equipment.
    The Bible doesn’t describe heaven in abstract terms it uses Earthly terms as well, but if there is God Then thru scientific research we can see that primary colors are infinite as well. It certainly would not make God deceitful for not revealing them to us. If we demanded that God show us the infinite primary colors and God did it. We might all drop dead, because it would blow our minds. This is why God gave us spirit not just our human form. The material universe is the artwork of God, the divine artist. Just as we can learn a lot about an artist thru his art, so we can learn a lot about God by studying his universe that’s science.
    An artist that could not accept the possibility of infinite primary color is no different than the scientist that refuses to believe in the possibility of intelligent design.
    The way scientist look for more colors is the same approach that they should take toward other aspects of science.
    Now to answerer The Jabberwock , who I promised to answer 2 days ago.
    Also, you say that religion and science cannot contradict each other. Why do you assume that any conflict means science is in error and not religion?
    I make no such assumption this is what I wrote The Bible and science can never contradict each other, because two truths cannot be contradictory. When we find an apparent contradiction between the TWO, it is generally due to a misunderstanding regarding what ONE is saying.
    There are over 30,000 protestant sects and many eastern sects (as you point out the Hindus) the list is long. Most claim the belief in God or Gods. I believe in that regard they are all correct.
    You wrote (if the Bible is only “divinely inspired�, it’s not the Word of God, but the words of those inspired by God.)
    Right that’s exactly what I said absolutely. I also said Jesus wrote none of the New Testament. Jabber writes:
    Anyway, here’s the be-all, end-all explanation for why Intelligent Design isn’t science: It makes the conclusion by proxy that God exists. God’s existence is an unprovable, and Intelligent Design makes a definite conclusion about an unprovable. Any “theory� that makes a by-proxy conclusion about an unprovable is simply not science. Q.E.D. Go ahead and teach it in theology classes, or philosophy classes, or whatever, but it does not belong in actual science because it cannot be, by definition, science
    Yes and no the deep aspects of religion should be taught in a Theology Philosophy course.
    Yes God existence is un-provable by today’s science as I pointed out in my last post Their are plenty of scientists on the cutting edge that are re-evaluating old science in favor of intelligent design. That always has a place in a science class. Science may someday prove the existence of God .I dont believe it will physically find God.
    God can only be found in mans spiritual side that is where Philosophy and theology classes fall into play.
    Joe Coleman

  28. Joe, I hope you talk about things you don’t understand because you want to be taught, and not because you want to flaunt your ignorance.
    Within the infinite possible colors there are both optical and pigmentary primaries: the former in the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (Red, Green, Blue), and the latter of reflection (Red, Yellow, Blue). These are not set colors and often must be changed in response to each other. The reason these combine into all other colors has less to do with physical reactions and most to do with how our eye recieves them.
    I have no romanticism about what I do, and I have no respect for everyone who romanticizes to substitute for understanding.
    We have our visible spectrum as a result of the color of the sun from which we happen to get our energy: the spectrum corrosponds with the frequencies most produced by the sun. We could potentially have sensors beyond that spectrum (some animals do) but it wouldn’t be biologically economical. You could say that intelligence chose the most useful spectrum for us, but the “choice” wouldn’t require intelligence.

    Our senses, our simplifications of perception, are limited in response to our environment and, I find, often sensitized in absurd or over-necessary ways.

    As far as the relevence this topic has to current politics, I realized again recently that that the only destination is what we teach each other on the journey. People are perfectly free to create communities where what they want taught is taught, as long as they don’t harm others or needlessly evangelize.

    Clearly showing when you’re quoting is yet another necessary aspect of comprehensible discourse.

  29. No Janet I’m not flaunting ignorance. I’m well aware of light and color, been painting cars as a hobby since 1977. Your little lesson was covered in class many years ago.
    I was using an elementary analogy to make a point. What really got you upset was not the analogy but the conclusion. So you resorted to name calling. Look I don’t
    Know what’s bothering you somewhere along the line. It sounds like you had some bad experience with some overzealous type. I can’t understand how some one so young can be so angry.
    Nice picture I wish I had some of my work to show as well. Just imagine a 65 Mustang painted in Yellow zinc (Ford code 6999 Year 2000 Color is viewable at dupont performance .com) what’s unique about this color is it gets light green hue in the shade where sun doesn’t hit it Like a Yellow jellybean. Now I’m way off topic. How did you post the link?

    Joe Coleman

  30. Just to clarify some of what I said — Joe.. again, in saying “you’re not an academic” it is not something you have to defend. If anyone here prides themselves on their academics, hopefully they will stop short of thinking themselves better than you. It is useful to point to certain “established facts”, and move onto other things. But if all people don’t know those things, that’s ok, the conversation just has to go in other directions, unless the person wants a “lesson” on those things. And that’s not always fun, especially since not every well-read academic is a great teacher, and of course “established facts” are not perfect gospel either.

    As for my request to comprehensively handle my post.. I don’t know what I meant, you’re right. I wasnt necessarily addressing just you (Mr. Coleman) but whomever would be inclined to respond. I know not everyone can respond to every detail, but sometimes some things are sorely missed. Sometimes the responses given even make the missed parts stand out more. I guess careful reading is all one can hope for. I certainly was thinking of some of Jabberwock’s posts though.. I know we only have so much time to respond, but maybe the things that are easiest to respond to should be more “suspect” as possibly misinterpretations. Perhaps in the time it takes to do 3 quick shootdowns to different ideas, you can take the time to handle one more difficult question with an answer that comes out less like a shootdown, and more an uncovering of something neither person previously knew was there. That may be a tall order, that’s an ideal situation. But in any case to sort of deal with a tougher question as honestly as you can, it may gain more than to try to “beat folks at their own game” (academic one-upmanship, maybe). I don’t know who is playing this game… but it’s best to lead people away from this by example.

    Joe.. regarding profanity.. I-know-that-you-know Jabberwock’s not cussin. I was merely pointing out that, this, for one, shows me that he is capable of adapting his discussion, and is interested in meat. I was only speaking from my own point of view, saying that YES I agree there can be too much — maybe you can see something about Jabberwock’s potential to come to agreement with you, if you recognize he is not shaking pepper all over you. I think it’s fairly meaty material he’d provided. Yeah a little angry but workable. I didn’t mean you were so fragile & couldn’t take it, just that in general I thought maybe you were a little more combative (note the jarring shift between your first ever post, and the one immediately after that). I for one was like “wow now he’s showing his true colors”. But really what I mean is that you were getting unnerved at the style & tone that you apprehend in Jabberwock and possibly others. So as before I can only encourage you not to think you’re SUPPOSED to be academic… but stick to what you know. Indeed anyone who considers themselves an academic really should too — it is easy to spout something back without a deep understanding of it, just cause a professor told you. Jack Chick’s immediate disgust for academic knowledge is not fair either — so of course the point is, there is no point in the game where you can be relieved of the responsibility of thinking for yourself. If you find any of your supporting information to be “tools” or means to an end, you must always remember how dependent your conclusions are upon the correctness of those tools. If the tools have weak spots it is in your own interest to try and break them — to know by experience that they are valid. And the less they are seen as “tools” the better, or else you risk compromising the process.

    The final thing I think I need to say about this bumblebee… it’s completely unreasonable, unlike Christian God which is full of direct and indirect meaning. Not all of it is exactly REASON and PROOF though. There is logic to it yes, and there are things true enough that we understand. Not because the bible said it, but because our hearts say it. That is what we connect with, what our hearts can feel. Angry Gods do appeal to us, they say something about the human condition. In that way it has “reason” but it doesn’t have anything to do with proof or disproof. It has to do with personal resonance. I would say “mythology”. I was bored by Greek mythology but came to understand a different use of the term. Where things have meaning simply as stories. Where the literal truth has no bearing on the emotional reality it reveals.

    It is particularly when logic & reason are used as tools to support the literal presence of a particular God that people start saying stuff about bumblebees. The point is that since it’s fundamentally unproveable, it doesn’t matter how far removed from personal mythological meaning it is, it can be substituted. Once there are followers, the logic and reasons for the bumblebee will spill out (just watch). Because we do what we have to to support what we already know in our hearts. This is true, the only trick is that what we know in our hearts isn’t even words at all, so even the final conclusion can be in the wrong words (or in words that confuse others) — same thing as the bible, non-literal. It made sense at the time for some particular number to be used, or some particular story to be told, but now it may strike us as wrong. Ok I’m done yapping.

  31. I killed the link blocking thing. The spam thing that made me enable it seems not to be as big a threat anymore.

    Wow, lots to which to reply, here. You’re nearly as verbose as I am, Josh. I don’t necessary agree with everything you said, but I think you did a commendable job of analyzing the discussion.

    I’ll reply to a few things now, and get to the others later. We just got back from a week-long trip for Thanksgiving, which is why my reply has been delayed, and why I’ll have to neglect to address everything that’s been brought up in the meantime.

    First, Joe: Intelligent Design does not have a place in science classes. Even if we take the approach of using the explanation that it was some kind of alien being who created life on this planet, that still concludes that aliens exist, which is something else that has yet to be proven. It’s not science. It’s like making something up, and then saying “assuming that what I just made up is true, here’s a theory I’d like to present”.

    Any scientists who abandon “old science”, as you called it, in favor of Intelligent Design aren’t merely switching from one type of science (old?) to another type (new?), they’re switching from science to not-science. You can’t completely abandon the scientific method and still claim you’re doing science. It doesn’t work that way. It’s like saying 2 + 2 = 5 and justifying it with the explanation that you’re switching from “old arithmetic”, or crapping on a piece of paper and saying you’re switching from “old literature”.

    Janet already addressed this, but I’ll clarify a bit as well: Colors are electromagnetic energy, and the ones that we can see are what we call the “visible spectrum”. Our rods and cones are capable of perceiving these, just like rattlesnakes’ sensory pits make them capable of perceiving infrared.

    http://praxis.pha.jhu.edu/pictures/emspec.gif There’s quite a lot that we can’t see, but that we know exists. If we could visually perceive radio waves, we’d be essentially blinded by them, because they’re practically everywhere. Not all of this energy represents color. It’s just energy. Thus, there aren’t infinite numbers of colors somewhere outside the range of human perception.

    As far as quoting others is concerned, I’m pretty sure you can use <blockquote> </blockquote> tags around the things you quote, and it’ll show up in a block. Janet’s right–it will help distinguish between what one is saying and what one is quoting from someone/-where else.

    I’ll reply more a little later to Josh, finally, and some other things of Joe’s.

  32. Joe, young people tend to be angrier. I’m usually an exception to that trend.
    You can’t argue against a conclusion without attacking the support. You already know that I take less offense to your opinions than to your manner of argument. I’m afraid I have no desire to make friends and win people over. You appeared to not know what the fuck you were talking about in order to come to the same conclusion as usual.

    I need to just stop responding to your provocations.

  33. Joe, thanks for linking that.

    It’s pretty much the types of argument I was expecting. He can’t imagine how it could have happened, therefore it must be God. I was pretty disheartened to find that someone who has a PhD in biochemistry could be so ignorant about biochemistry, so I did a little searching on him. The department he works in has this linked on the main page:

    Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”

    The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

    The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.â€? While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

    Tenure’s a bitch.

    First, let’s consider his example of the mousetrap. Something that every biochemistry undergrad (not to mention PhD graduate) should know is that biology is pretty conservative. It has come up with a few ways to do general things, and keeps using them over and over. In the case of the mousetrap, he is correct, in that you’re not going to start with a platform, catch a few mice, then get a better spring, etc. But what he should realize is that the platform is being used as a cutting board. There is a spring on the screen door. And everyone has a hammer in the toolbox. A random mutation brings these three things together, and then you start catching mice. Perhaps the analogy loses its point, let me explain a little more clearly.

    His example of a flagellum. Those 40 different kinds of proteins are being used in all other aspects of the cell, not just the flagellum. One simple mutation could cause them all to come together and create a flagellum. The main building fibers of the flagellum are used ALL THE TIME in cells, even cells without flagella.

    There are only a handful of functions that proteins perform. Phosphorylate something, act as an acid or base, bind something, etc. A certain phosphorylation mechanism has evolved, and has been used over and over in different proteins. You can classify proteins based on this type of stuff. A new protein doesn’t need to be intelligently designed, it just needs a slight mutation to let it phosphorylate a different chemical. On the molecular level, not much has changed, but on the cellular level, a bacterium now has a flagellum. A slight change in the ‘spring’ protein will stop it from functioning as it did before, and instead lets it attach to a ‘base’ and a ‘hammer’ protein. Now you have a mousetrap, when before the mutation you didn’t even have a proto-mousetrap. Simple mutations can cause a great bit of change on the level of the organism. Behe should know this, I wonder where he got his PhD from…

    Sorry if this isn’t making much sense, but it’s a little hard for me to explain to a general audience. If anything is not clear, let me know.

    Taking a little more off topic steps, I don’t really know what is going on with the ‘infinite colors’ thing.

    Not all of this energy represents color. It’s just energy. Thus, there aren’t infinite numbers of colors somewhere outside the range of human perception.

    Well, now you’re getting into semantics. I guess you would consider only the electromagnetic waves (light) that we can see to be ‘color’ but really they are no different from gamma waves, infrared, micro, or radio waves. The only difference is the frequency and wavelength.

    If we demanded that God show us the infinite primary colors and God did it. We might all drop dead, because it would blow our minds.

    You’re right, a nice burst of gamma radiation would cause us all to drop dead.

    An interesting aside to all this though is to ask WHY we can see what colors we see. It’s pretty interesting that the food we eat dictates the colors we can see. Apples turn from green to red when ripening. Blueberries turn from green to blue. Corn becomes yellow. Blood is red.

    Other organisms see different colors. Hawks can see UV light, which lets them see the trail a mouse makes when running from a few hundred feet in the air. Bees can see outside our range (UV, I think, but it might be infrared) in order to detect when a flower is ready for pollination. Jabberwock mentioned how snakes can see in IR.

    It’s another line of evidence for evolution, actually. Humans that couldn’t see red wouldn’t know if an apple was ripe, and wouldn’t be as fit as humans who could. We don’t need to see UV though, since we don’t chase mice. Therefore, we were selected for being able to see the range of color corresponding to the food we eat.

  34. As another aside, I wanted to address some of the arguing that gets done about this kind of stuff. It’s a little painful to me to watch people like the kansas board of education arguing about evolution vs i.d. as it’s obvious to me that they don’t know what a protein or a gene even is, much less what evolution MEANS. You can sit here and argue about shortcomings in evolution, etc, but just look at the scientific community. Over 99% accept evolution as the theory which describes the vast amount of evidence available. These are people who are trained to understand the evidence. The few that don’t, just look at their research…oh, wait, they don’t have any. Look at behe’s publications. How many are in peer reviewed scientific journals?

    Here is his selected list of publications:

    Selected Publications

    Behe, M.J. 2005. Design for Living. New York Times, February 7, p. A21.

    Behe M.J., Snoke D.W. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci13:2651-2664.

    Behe, M.J. 2004. “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution.” In Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA, Ruse, M. and Dembski, W.A., eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 352-370.

    Behe, M.J. 2003. “Design in the Details: The Origin of Biomolecular Machines.” In Darwinism, Design & Public Education, Campbell, J.A. and Meyer, S.C. eds., Michigan State University Press, pp. 287-302.

    Behe, M.J. 2003. “The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules.” In God and

    Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science , Neil Manson, ed., Routledge, pp. 277-291.

    Behe, M.J. 2002. The challenge of irreducible complexity. Natural History 111, 74.

    Behe, M.J. 2001. Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Biology and Philosophy16, 685-709.

    Behe, M.J. 2000. Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin. Philosophy of Science 67, 155-162.

    Behe, M.J. 1999. Teach Evolution—And Ask Hard Questions. New York Times, August 13, p. A21.

    Behe, M.J. 1996a. Darwin Under the Microscope, New York Times, October 29, p. A25.

    Behe, M.J. 1996b. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, New York.

    Philosophy of Science, New York Times, and his own books are not peer reviewed scientific journals, in case you were wondering. His articles that were in scientific journals? Have nothign to do with i.d. I wonder why.

    Let me put it this way, I don’t call up ford and tell them that a 2 cylinder engine has more horsepower than an 8 cylinder engine since it has less cylinders to spend energy on, so why do non scientists try to explain science to those that are actually trained to understand it? Of course the kansas school board thinks there are holes in evolutionary theory, they don’t even know what it is. In reality, the holes are in their understanding, not the theory itself.

  35. Er, sorry, re: colors. What I meant was that there are certain ranges of energy that, if we saw them, they would wash out any of the other ranges. If we could see all of the electromagnetic spectrum, we’d only end up seeing the range of it that’s the most prevalent. (Like radio waves.) Or, as you said, if we were in the presence of certain ranges of energy, we’d be dead. And it’s not necessarily “color”, per se, as the term “color” is really only used to describe what we can see.

    But, yeah, great job again, Mr. Watt.

  36. If we could see all of the electromagnetic spectrum, we’d only end up seeing the range of it that’s the most prevalent.

    Not necessarily. We could be highly sensitive to 560nm light, but only slightly sensitive to 98Mhz radio frequency light. In that case, we could only ‘see’ the radio frequency light if it was a strong signal. Similar to hearing, we’re much more sensitive in the middle of our hearing range than we are near the edges. So, even if 20khz sound is much more prevalent, the 500Hz sound might sound ‘louder’ as we’re more sensitive to it.

    I think the main argument here is that we don’t need to eat stars and radio stations, so we don’t need to see radio frequecy light waves :). Mmmmmm, DJ…..

  37. Hehehe.

    Well, see, I was operating on the assumption, based on what Joe said, that there wouldn’t really be strengths and weaknesses to our senses and that God would magically make us capable of seeing, at equal levels, the entire range of electromagnetic energy.

  38. Eric thank you for finding the link, and sifting thru all the material Keep in mind when ever I make a reference it will be basic .That is too say for those with at least a high school level of science.
    I don’t know your back ground but I’m sure much more scholarly writing is available by contacting the source directly. The mouse trap part as you wrote is basic keep in mind the audience. It was format that I grasped well. You will also notice that he never say that his findings can never be over turned in the future on the contrary he writes (Of course, I could be proved wrong. If someone demonstrated that, say, a type of bacteria without a flagellum could gradually produce such a system, or produce any new, comparably complex structure, my idea would be neatly disproved. But I don’t expect that to happen.) Also Behe is not alone in his theory, and he obviously has his detractors. It proves that there is controversy in the scientific community and since it is the purpose of science to research then that avenue should be traveled until it’s exhausted. This is why as said earlier to jabber the scientific community should look into creative design as a theory the same as evolution is a theory. You also notice Behe does not totally exclude Evolutional theory .He fully concludes that evolution within a species exists and lists many examples I’m sure when the concept of spontaneous generation was challenged it had its critics as well, until the invention of the microscope. As far as “tenure being a bitch� you’ll get no argument from me. Tenure is nothing but a way of way of holding on too dead wood. This is not the case here in my opinion. As far as peer review is concerned Behe ran up against the old boy network. If scientific publications refuse to publish, you can’t cry there is no peer review. The web site I gave you addresses that issue. Edit: This link shortened. anytime you swim against the current there will be resistance the 99% orthodox will win out.
    Jabber raise an interesting point
    If science finds evidence of Alien beings wouldn’t science have an obligation to pursue it further, even if we find it ridicules? Such is the case with intelligent design science has an obligation to pursue it. Since as I have showed there is evidence pointing in that direction with in the scientific community .Even though you may disagree, also pointing to intelligent design in no way means an end to scientific research which some here are suggesting. It certainly does not shut the door on evolutional theory. It’s not one or the other. It could very well be refinement of both. It is true that a science class does not have to mention God; but it has an obligation to describe his work.

  39. …but it’s unprovable. See Jabber, above.
    I mean, really, ID doesn’t even add anything to explanation of natural phenomena; it actually detracts, and retracts the past 150 years of biology. It’s proposed by people who think that because they don’t understand evolution it must be wrong.

  40. No, see, Intelligent Design can’t be science because it makes definite conclusions about things we can’t observe, test, or–at this point in time, at least–prove. Science, by definition, cannot do that. Thus, Intelligent Design can’t be science. It can be a neat thing to discuss in a theology class, sure, but it can’t be science, because science doesn’t work that way, and to include a “theory” that does what Intelligent Design does into the world of science is to completely throw away all the fundamental principles of science, including the scientific method.

    Let me do a comparison, here: Let’s take one of the fundamental principles of arithmetic–that, say, any number times zero equals zero. Then, someone came along with a formula that relied upon the notion that any number times zero equals fifty-four. It just doesn’t work, because you can’t alter the rules of arithmetic like that. You can call it a revolutionary idea, or getting away from the “old math”, but when it comes down to it, it’s incompatible with the rules.

    I mean, you might think it sucks that it works that way, but it’s the same standard that ensures that tried, tested information isn’t replaced with wild, unfounded conclusions. Or that two and two equals four and not seventy.

  41. A better mathematical analogy is dividing by zero. Do it and you can make anything equal anything – so we don’t do it.

  42. The mouse trap part as you wrote is basic keep in mind the audience. It was format that I grasped well.

    Oh, I understand. I have no issue with using an analogy that will be better understood by laypersons. If I started talking about protein domains, motifs, sequence homology, or conserved regions, I would lose most people here. My problem with the mouse trap concept is that the logic behind it is flawed. To make a mouse trap, you don’t need to invent the board, the hammer, the spring, etc. You have all these things in your home already. You just need to realize that they can go together. In much the same way, bacteria already have everything they need to make a flagellum, they just need to be brought together. One single mutation could cause a bacterium with no flagellum to grow one. See how that destroys his whole argument?

    You will also notice that he never say that his findings can never be over turned in the future

    Actually, I disagree. I don’t think his findings can ever be overturned, because he HAS NO findings. Where is his evidence? There is no evidence. No science. And, in the end, his logic is wrong too.

    It proves that there is controversy in the scientific community

    I’m in the scientific community. And, rest assured, there is NO controversy over evolution. The only time i.d. is mentioned is to make fun of the people who try to argue for it.

    Tenure is nothing but a way of way of holding on too dead wood.

    Well, tenure does have it’s place. You can do unpopular research without fear of the University firing you from fear of public backlash. The problem here is a scientist is doing ‘research’ that isn’t even science. That’s like me getting tenure, and then doing ‘research’ by writing scifi books.

    If scientific publications refuse to publish, you can’t cry there is no peer review. The web site I gave you addresses that issue. Edit: Link Shortened anytime you swim against the current there will be resistance the 99% orthodox will win out.

    Ah, interesting. Notice that the reasons he was denied are the same ones I’m giving. The logic behind his arguments are so laughably incorrect that it doesn’t even stand as a competing theory to science. On top of that, he hasn’t even DONE science. He has no research. I can’t write a paper on what I think the structure of a protein MIGHT be. I need evidence. A crystal structure, NMR data, etc. His sole evidence is ‘I don’t understand how a bacterium can grow a flagellum, therefore evolution is wrong’ when I just told you how a bacterium could grow a flagellum, disproving his entire theory.

    If science finds evidence of Alien beings wouldn’t science have an obligation to pursue it further, even if we find it ridicules? Such is the case with intelligent design science has an obligation to pursue it.

    There is no evidence for i.d.

    Since as I have showed there is evidence pointing in that direction with in the scientific community .

    No, there isn’t.

    It is true that a science class does not have to mention God; but it has an obligation to describe his work.

    No, it doesn’t. It has an obligation to describe what is scientifically known. i.d. is NOT science. Any 3rd grader who is learning about the scientific method can tell you this. There is NO evidence for i.d. None. All you’ve offered is Behe, and I’ve shown how his arguments are retarded. Do you have any real arguments, or are you going to argue out of ignorance?

  43. Joe (and others): I thought you might like to view this article:

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051201-5668.html

    Here are a couple quotes you may find interesting:

    One of the initial hopes for this, the concept of Irreducible Complexity as posited by Michael Behe, has come in for a bruising both in the biological and legal realms of late. Studies in biology have shown that the blood clotting system that was claimed by Behe to be irreducibly complex can function with far fewer proteins in some primitive vertebrates.

    That’s the problem with ‘irreducibly complex’. As soon as we start looking at it, it’s no longer irreducible. Since i.d. isn’t science though, they can simply say ‘oh, now THAT part is irreducibly complex. In any case, it shows his arguments are worthless.

    Meanwhile, on the witness stand at the Dover trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys left Behe surrounded by over 50 peer reviewed publications on the evolution of the immune system, which he dismissed as irrelevant without reading.

    He dismisses 50 articles with EVIDENCE (notice how he doesn’t like evidence) against i.d. without even reading them. You don’t think he has an agenda? You don’t think he is pro i.d. (and creationism), evidence be damned?

    Overall, it’s a pretty good article, it just shows how i.d. proponents are grasping for straws, and how ignorant they really are when it comes to scientific matters.

  44. Here is another good site, which provides another argument agasint Behe’s “logic”

    http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

    I like this quote:

    The mousetrap illustrates one of the fundamental flaws in the intelligent design argument: the fact that one person can’t imagine something doesn’t mean it is impossible, it may just mean that the person has a limited imagination.

    Ah, it just feels good to read something so correct 😀

    This is the problem with supporting an idea without having any evidence for it. You get your ass handed to you because you can’t back up your ideas.

  45. Hello all

    Woo a lot of feedback ,and some insults! Eric I’m disappointed I expect better from an educated man retarded ignorant shame on you.

    1st I want to post a link to a series of discussions and lectures and debates on this topic, but I will need permission from the webmaster you will need a real one player, since he recently set up a way to post links. Jabber if you want I can send it thru regular E-mail at this site to review. You will note that when ever I talk about I.D it is always in the realm of theory. Not all evolution is proven either; there is still a lot that is theory. Would you suggest the theoretical aspects of Darwinism which is unproven to a philosophy course? The big bang is a theory, one I agree on but none the less a theory.

    How and how would it retract 150 years of proven biology? We have come so far in 150 years in cell research disease elimination how could this possibly roll that all back.

    I don’t think that’s what he saying and I read your post very carefully (post #43) due to the technical nature of it. The question he poses is not whether a cell can mutate (which cold viruses do all the time a lay person like myself understands that) but rather can random mutations produce the evolution of life? That’s his question. Since you seem to question his credentials what are yours? You say you’re in science show your hand. I’ve showed my hand. Has any of your works been published for peer review?

    Why is it that doesn’t surprise me?

    Insult aside, science has obligation to research ?+? =. The cure for A.I.D.S or cancer. That is what they are paid for. A 3rd grader studying the scientific method is not expected to find these answers. Now as far as Behe is concerned her is a list of those who are skeptical as well http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
    Now if you like you can run all over the internet and refute their character. Another thing don’t confuse a thick skin with a thick head,

    Edited by admin to fix formatting.

  46. Woo a lot of feedback ,and some insults! Eric I’m disappointed I expect better from an educated man retarded ignorant shame on you.

    I didn’t mean ignorant as an insult. I meant it as it’s defined, lacking knowledge or uninformed. People who argue i.d. don’t even seem to understand what evolution is. One of the big peices of ‘evidence’ that used to be used was the eye. How can random mutations evolve into the eye? Obviously it must be intelligently designed. Except, molecular biologists traced the pathway from light sensing cells all the way to the eye today through random mutations. You don’t hear proponents of i.d. talk about the eye anymore. I wonder why.

    You will note that when ever I talk about I.D it is always in the realm of theory. Not all evolution is proven either; there is still a lot that is theory. Would you suggest the theoretical aspects of Darwinism which is unproven to a philosophy course? The big bang is a theory, one I agree on but none the less a theory.

    I don’t think you understand what a scientific theory is. A theory is as good as it gets. Relativity, gravitation, evolution, these are all theories. Hundreds of scientists working in tandem along different lines of experiments produce mountains of data that supports a given theory. A theory is not a guess, that is a hypothesis. i.d. will never be a theory, for there is no evidence for it. And there never will be, as i.d. doesn’t make any testable, predictable, or falsifiable conclusions. It isn’t science. Period. Also, NOTHING is proven. You can prove things as false, but never true. Gravity hasn’t been proven, the existence of light hasn’t been proven, etc. There is just a TON of data showing it to be true, so that we generally accept it as so.

    Since you seem to question his credentials what are yours? You say you’re in science show your hand. I’ve showed my hand. Has any of your works been published for peer review?

    I’m in grad school getting my PhD in biophysical chemistry. I’ve submitted a few papers, and waiting for the results from the reviews. I’ve worked on the structure and dynamics of RNA, and have recently been studying proteins similarly. For undergrad, I majored in both chemistry and biochemistry, while working in a biophysics lab. Does any of it matter? No. Focus on the logic of the argument, not the credentials. As I said, some great Nobel Prize recipients worked on some serious junk later in life. My point of listing his publications was to show that they aren’t published in scientific journals, they’re published in newspapers and his own books. He doesn’t have any scientific arguments, they’re philosophical. My claim that he is ignorant isn’t based on his credentials, where he went to school, where he now teaches, but instead is based upon his arguments. By reading what he says, it shows that he doesn’t understand molecular biology, biochemistry, or genetics. Did you look at the links I posted? They destroy his mousetrap analogy, as well as this other lines of ‘evidence’.

    Now if you like you can run all over the internet and refute their character.

    I don’t refute character, I refute arguments. Perhaps it’s from being a science major, but I always poke holes in ideas. It’s what scientists do. If someone tells me an RNA is dynamic, I think of 101 ways it’s not dynamic, and how their data would be consistent with that. Skepticism is very important. The problem is that it is very easy to shoot huge holes through the arguments I’ve seen of i.d. I’m sorry if you took my criticisms for their arguments to be criticisms of the people themselves. I think Linus Pauling is a brilliant man, but I think his work on vitamin C is ridiculous.

    Also, look at the wording of the quote. Most scientists are skeptical about EVERYTHING, and almost everyone would like more evidence. It’s not the same as being a proponent for i.d.

    I’d love to respond to the rest of your comments, but it looks like the quote feature didn’t work for you, so I don’t know what passages you were responding to. I’ll ask jabberwock if he can fix it.

    But do check out those links, they’re pretty interesting.

  47. Actually, there’s only one blockquote I found in his comments. I corrected it, but all the > markers were apparently unrelated to HTML tagging. Not sure what happened with that.

    Joe, you can post up to, I think, five links now without it triggering moderation. Go right ahead–no need to await my review.

    Also, here’s how blockquotes work:

    <blockquote>The text you want to have in the block (probably a quotation from another person or source).</blockquote>

    I still have to get around to replying to Josh, and apologize for neglecting to do so more promptly.

  48. Sorry about the confusion Eric I e-mailed the webmaster separate from our discussion since he recently provided a means of posting links. I wanted to make sure the post was acceptable. Since every webmaster has a different definition of spam.
    Thanks for the clarification Jabber I will post this link which contains a series of lectures and engaging forums on the topic being discussed. To the average person it may be hard to follow although Eric will breeze thru it all.
    Most of us will be pausing and have to refer to different parts of the internet for clarification. In all honesty I have note completed hearing even 25% of the speakers.
    Also I find myself having to go back to re-listen to that to grasp it.
    I can only suggest bear with it. The one doctor who makes Eric’s point in a clear way is
    Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, a former college professor, is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, also one of the easiest to comprehend. I will respond to the posts later I just want to get this up for anyone with a larger interest in the topic.
    http://www.meta-library.net/perspevo/index-frame.html

  49. Ok I see what went wrong here I will fix post #58 Using ( )for quotation sorry for the inconvienence the quotes were not picked up.

  50. 1. Hello all
    Woo a lot of feedback, and some insults! Eric I’m disappointed I expect better fro m an educated man retarded ignorant shame on you.
    (“ Intelligent Design can’t be science. It can be a neat thing to discuss in a theology class, sure, but it can’t be science, because science doesn’t work that way, and to include a “theory� that does what Intelligent Design does into the world of science is to completely throw away all the fundamental principles of science, including the scientific method.�)
    You will note that when ever I talk about I.D it is always in the realm of theory. Not all evolution is proven either; there is still a lot that is theory. Would you suggest the theoretical aspects of Darwinism which is unproven to a philosophy course? The big bang is a theory, one I agree on but none the less a theory.
    (“It just doesn’t work, because you can’t alter the rules of arithmetic like that. You can call it a revolutionary idea, or getting away from the “old math�, but when it comes down to it, it’s incompatible with the rules�)
    That’s true to a point, and I like the math analogy. Their are absolutes in science I.E laws of gravity, nature, thermodynamics, and physics. A chemistry teacher gives a class a lesson. H2O or H2+O = water. This is absolute. If the student asks who or what caused the Hydrogen and oxygen. The teacher would reply it does not matter. Its not relevant to what we are discussing. The teacher would be right of course. As in math you can’t have a solution with 2 unknowns. In biology and astronomy we have the solution. We don’t have the complete equation that brought it about. Four divided by two equals two. Here the antecedent is represented by the divided and divisor, and the consequent – by the quotient. Knowing the antecedent in this case, gives us one possible result – the quotient (the number 2).
    However, if we know only the end result, namely, the number 2, and we ask ourselves, how can we arrive at the number 2, The answer permits several possibilities, arrived at by means of different methods: (a) 1 plus 1 equals 2; (b) 4-2 equals 2; (c) 1 x 2 equals 2; (d) 4 2 equals 2. Note that if other numbers are to come into play, the number of possibilities giving us the same result is infinite (since 5 – 3 also equals 2; 6 3 equals 2 etc. ad infinitum).Critics of I.D often argue that it is a negative argument against evolution, this is not the case Design can be inferred using the scientific method as well.
    http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

    (I mean, really, ID doesn’t even add anything to explanation of natural phenomena; it actually detracts, and retracts the past 150 years of biology)
    How and how would it retract 150 years of proven biology? We have come so far in 150 years in cell research disease elimination how could this possibly roll that all back.
    (His sole evidence is ‘I don’t understand how a bacterium can grow a flagellum, therefore evolution is wrong’ when I just told you how a bacterium could grow a flagellum, disproving his entire theory.)
    I don’t think that’s what he saying and I read your post very carefully (post #43) due to the technical nature of it. The question he poses is not whether a cell can mutate (which cold viruses do all the time a lay person like myself understands that) but rather can random mutations produce the evolution of life? That’s his question. Since you seem to question his credentials what are yours? You say you’re in science show your hand. I’ve showed my hand. Has any of your works been published for peer review?
    (The only time i.d. is mentioned is to make fun of the people who try to argue for it.)
    Why is it that doesn’t surprise me?
    (“i.d. is NOT science. Any 3rd grader who is learning about the scientific method can tell you this. There is NO evidence for i.d. None. All you’ve offered is Behe, and I’ve shown how his arguments are retarded. Do you have any real arguments, or are you going to argue out of ignorance?�)
    Insult aside, science has obligation to research?+? =. The cure for A.I.D.S or cancer. That is what they are paid for. A 3rd grader studying the scientific method is not expected to find these answers. Now as far as Behe is concerned here is a list of those who are skeptical as well http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
    Now if you like you can run all over the internet and refute their character. Another thing don’t confuse a thick skin with a thick head,

  51. I tryed to fix post # 58 the best I could should have sved it some place as Jabber described earlier.Wont make that mistake.Sorry for the confusion

  52. No, those aren’t “absolutes”. They’re merely “that which, given evidence, is more believable than the alternatives”. There is no “absolute” in science.

    The only “rules” of science are things like the scientific method. If you abandon that, you are, by definition, not being scientific. That is, if you make definite assumptions about things you can’t observe–like Intelligent Design does–then you’re not being scientific. Thus, it’s not science.

    It’s not that it’s in conflict with the “laws” of science–that is, the law of gravity, the law of friction, etc.–it’s that it’s in conflict with the laws of science that govern the scientific procedures and protocols.

  53. Dont know this is why I used (Quote)instead of the greater than less than signs,wich wipe out alot of the typed info.

  54. There seems to be a lot of confusion here first there are absolutes in science the periodic table of elements for example is absolute, oh their may be elements not discovered yet that would latter be added to the table. What It means is H2+O will always = Water.
    Interpolation (which is not extrapolation}
    When studying the origin of life or the universe we use interpolation as far as we can take it then we rely on extrapolation (Theory).
    Extrapolation where we guess what will happen based on the basis of what we know in the known (Interpolation) range. Also the uncertainty increases the further we get from the known range.
    Of the 2 methods the 2nd (Extrapolation) is clearly the weaker of the two. Example:
    10 primitive men discover fire. The fire is hot (interpolation) they decide to experiment (lab work) they want to know how fire will react on a bowl of water. All agree the tempter will rise, 9 (99%) say the tempter will rise and the water will stay in the bowl
    One (1%) however says I believe it will disappear since he notice dew is gone after sunrise. The 99% laugh at the 1% .The lab work is concluded the 1% is correct .extrapolation now becomes interpolation. Both groups have used the scientific method
    Naturalism Conflicts with the Scientific Method. Although Naturalism may work well in strictly empirical sciences, it does not work in origins sciences. In this area of science it clearly conflicts with the scientific method. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be tested against all competing hypotheses and their related evidence. With regard to origins science, Naturalism censors the competing design hypothesis and declares it to be invalid as a matter of assumption and not as a matter of evidence. There are essentially only two hypotheses regarding origins. The naturalistic hypothesis is that life and its diversity results only from chance and necessity while the design hypothesis suggests that it results from a combination of design, chance and necessity. If you philosophically limit inquiry and explanation to only the naturalistic hypothesis, then you violate the laws of logic which seek to produce reliable and trustworthy explanations.
    Once again let me stress I.D has nothing to do with religion,I.D is the study of the design not the designer. Example: A student majoring in automotive design does not study the philosophy of Henry Ford, only his design.

  55. There seems to be a lot of confusion here

    Indeed.

    first there are absolutes in science the periodic table of elements for example is absolute, oh their may be elements not discovered yet that would latter be added to the table. What It means is H2+O will always = Water.

    Incorrect. There are NO absolutes. There are things on the fringe of science that we are sort of confident in (structure of a protein, evidence of a planet orbiting some star, etc) and things we are VERY confident in (relativity, quantum mechanics (this includes everything on the periodic table), evolution, gravitation, etc). However, no scientist would say we are 100% SURE of anything. It’s more, as far as we can tell, this is how it is. 2H2 + O2 = H2O is correct, as far as well can tell. But notice it doesn’t say anything about temperature (this wouldn’t happen at absolute zero). You also need a heat source, such as a flame. What about at 2000C? Would it dissociate again? See, even in a case where it’s very well understood, there are many variables which can affect how ‘absolute’ a statement is. Newtons laws are indeed correct, until you look on the molecular level. Remember, those were ‘Laws’ until shown via quantum mechanics to be correct only in special cases. The same can be true of any other ideas in science, which is why nothing is ever proven correct.

    10 primitive men discover fire. The fire is hot (interpolation) they decide to experiment (lab work) they want to know how fire will react on a bowl of water. All agree the tempter will rise, 9 (99%) say the tempter will rise and the water will stay in the bowl
    One (1%) however says I believe it will disappear since he notice dew is gone after sunrise. The 99% laugh at the 1% .The lab work is concluded the 1% is correct .extrapolation now becomes interpolation. Both groups have used the scientific method

    I’m guessing you meant this to be an analogy to the current ‘debate’ between scientists supporting evolution and i.d. What you have to realize is that the 99.9999% who support evolution have ALL the evidence. The other 0.0001% have NO evidence. I’m having these same arguments accross 2 or 3 websites, and all I want is someone to give me some evidence. I can’t find ANY anywhere. The ONLY argument is that “I don’t understand science or evolution, so life must be intelligently designed”. Don’t tell me that’s not the sole justification of i.d., as it’s the only argument that you or Behe or anyone else has been able to make. I.d. is NOT science, and please don’t continue to act like it is until you do a little reading and learn how science really works.

    Joe, I was going to comment on the rest of your post, but I feel like I’m explaining basic science once again. I seriously suggest, if you’re really interested in continuing to argue your side, that you look into some basic science books, and read about how the scientific method works. It’s clear that you’re a little unclear in this area. I don’t mean that as an insult in any way, just that there are some fundamental flaws in your reasoning.

  56. While I have not read every post listed on this particular Dissection, I would like to point out something that I, as a Christian, believe. In the Bible God Himself is credited (is that the right word? I’m not entirely sure) as saying “A day to me is like a thousand years, and a thousand years a day.” So it is entirely possible for the Evolutionary Belief and the belief of Creation to coincide. As my step-father put it, “The Bible says that God created the world; Evolution explains how He did it.”

  57. As my step-father put it, “The Bible says that God created the world; Evolution explains how He did it.�

    See, I can totally respect this position. I don’t understand why religious people need to force i.d. when evolution doesn’t even contradict the fact that God could be the one who ‘set up’ evolution.

  58. (Incorrect. There are NO absolutes. There are things on the fringe of science that we are sort of confident in (structure of a protein, evidence of a planet orbiting some star, etc) and things we are VERY confident in (relativity, quantum mechanics (this includes everything on the periodic table), evolution, gravitation, etc). However, no scientist would say we are 100% SURE of anything. It’s more, as far as we can tell, this is how it is. 2H2 + O2 = H2O is correct, as far as well can tell. But notice it doesn’t say anything about temperature (this wouldn’t happen at absolute zero). You also need a heat source, such as a flame. What about at 2000C? Would it dissociate again? See, even in a case where it’s very well understood, there are many variables which can affect how ‘absolute’ a statement is. Newtons laws are indeed correct, until you look on the molecular level. Remember, those were ‘Laws’ until shown via quantum mechanics to be correct only in special cases. The same can be true of any other ideas in science, which is why nothing is ever proven correct.)
    Stop splitting hairs you know what I mean. If there are no absolutes in science, why are you so quick to throw out I.D? I’m aware of this whole paragraph you wrote. Basically the problem has its roots in a misconception of the scientific method or, simply, of what science is. We must distinguish between empirical or experimental science dealing with, and confined to, describing and classifying observable phenomena, and speculative science, dealing with unknown phenomena, sometimes phenomena that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Scientific speculation is actually a terminological incongruity; for science, strictly speaking, means knowledge, while no speculation can be called knowledge in the strict sense of the word. At best, science can only speak in terms of theories inferred from certain known facts and applied in the realm of the unknown. Here science has two general methods of inference;
    (a) The method of interpolation (as distinguished from extrapolation), whereby, knowing the reaction under two extremes, we attempt to infer what the reaction might be at any point between the two.
    (b) The method of extrapolation, whereby inferences are made beyond a known range, on the basis of certain variables within the known range. For example, suppose we know the variables of a certain element within a temperature range of 0 to 100, and on the basis of this we estimate what the reaction might be at 101, 200, or 2000. I explained this in simple terms before. When I speak of laws I’m referring to (A) not (B).
    (What you have to realize is that the 99.9999% who support evolution have ALL the evidence. The other 0.0001% have NO evidence. I’m having these same arguments across 2 or 3 websites, and all I want is someone to give me some evidence. I can’t find ANY anywhere. The ONLY argument is that “I don’t understand science or evolution, so life must be intelligently designed�)
    As far as evolution I can tell you without fear of contradiction that it has not a shred of evidence to support it. On the contrary, during the years of research and investigation since the theory was first advanced, it has been possible to observe certain species of animal and plant life of a short life-span over thousands of generations, yet it has never been possible to establish a transmutation from one species into another, much less to turn a plant into an animal. Hence such a theory can have no place in the arsenal of empirical science. Now do you have evidence on the contrary?
    (The ONLY argument is that “I don’t understand science or evolution, so life must be intelligently designed�.)
    LAME! Your only argument is I don’t understand science or design so life evolved randomly. A complete misrepresentation of I.D. approach No one is saying we don’t understand. God made it all pack up our slide rules and go home. Read their website http://www.arn.org/index.html Which is made up of scientists, paleontologists etc,etc. I.D researches from the point of view that design is implied, not occurring randomly. Research should study design. All though I.D is the minority opinion in the scientific community it’s numbers are growing. .Scientist (as far as I’m concerned) are on the cutting edge. They also have a discussion pages if you think I lack basic scientific knowledge. In the end science will win out.
    (I.d. is NOT science, and please don’t continue to act like it is until you do a little reading and learn how science really works.)
    Read their web site the one that has to do some reading here is you. Spare me the I’m smarter than you bullshit. You just don’t like loosing against sound reasoning.

  59. ( I can totally respect this position. I don’t understand why religious people need to force i.d. when evolution doesn’t even contradict the fact that God could be the one who ’set up’ evolution.)
    It’s also the 1st thing I said in post #1!

  60. I have to admit that when you got to the math, you lost me, Joe. This isn’t intended as an insult, but when you turn 9/10 into 99%, it casts massive doubt on the rest of your argument.

    You’re still missing the distinction: We’re not saying Intelligent Design is definitely not correct (i.e. “throwing it out”). We’re saying that it’s NOT SCIENCE. Regardless of how true it may be, it’s based upon things we can’t observe or test, and is unprovable. That’s not science, that’s theology or philosophy. For all we know, it could very well be true. But unless there’s clear evidence for it–and there currently isn’t, because the existence of God is thus far unprovable–it’s simply not science.

    Again, let me stress this: We’re not saying it’s true, and we’re not saying it’s false. There’s no way we can indicate that it’s close to true or close to false. This is why it is not science–because we don’t have any evidence to make any judgment.

    Do you see where I’m going with this? I think you think we disagree with something entirely different than what we’re disagreeing with you on. We don’t disagree that it’s possible–for all we know, it could very well be. We disagree with it being allowed into science class, because it falls outside the boundaries of science, as it doesn’t operate using observable, provable information.

  61. BTW, I’d like to point out the forums, over in the nav on the left. If anyone would like to start any more discussions on topics that haven’t been brought up in articles (or even that have), feel free to post stuff there. Register an account. Please.

    Thanks.

  62. Also: Joe, don’t listen to what the instructions read for HTML above this form (right below “Leave a comment”). If you want to put something into quotes, just go:

    <blockquote>Put the stuff you want to quote in here, and then when you’re finished, close it off with the closing tag.</blockquote>

    So you have “blockquote”, which starts the blockquote, and then “/blockquote”, with the slash, which ends it.

    The example above would look like:

    Put the stuff you want to quote in here, and then when you’re finished, close it off with the closing tag.

    You can do the same with <b>bold</b>, <i>italic</i>, etc. The things in greater/less-than enclosures are called “tags”, and they’re used for HTML formatting. When you put something between a beginning and ending tag (ending tags have the slash at the beginning), it’ll take on the attributes described by the tag.

    Hope this helps.

  63. You’re still missing the distinction: We’re not saying Intelligent Design is definitely not correct (i.e. “throwing it out�). We’re saying that it’s NOT SCIENCE. Regardless of how true it may be, it’s based upon things we can’t observe or test, and is unprovable. That’s not science, that’s theology or philosophy. For all we know, it could very well be true. But unless there’s clear evidence for it–and there currently isn’t, because the existence of God is thus far unprovable–it’s simply not science.

    Again, let me stress this: We’re not saying it’s true, and we’re not saying it’s false. There’s no way we can indicate that it’s close to true or close to false. This is why it is not science–because we don’t have any evidence to make any judgment.

    Exactly. This debate is getting rather frustrating, because it’s arguing about what science is, something we all should know.

  64. Spare me the I’m smarter than you bullshit. You just don’t like loosing against sound reasoning.

    Yes Joe, I’m sorry. I don’t know what science is. I obviously need to do a bit more reading and understand how science works at a fundamental level, even though I majored in it for 4 years.

    Stop splitting hairs you know what I mean. If there are no absolutes in science, why are you so quick to throw out I.D?

    I throw out i.d. because it is not science. It could very well be right, but there is no evidence for it as of yet.

    ( I can totally respect this position. I don’t understand why religious people need to force i.d. when evolution doesn’t even contradict the fact that God could be the one who ’set up’ evolution.)
    It’s also the 1st thing I said in post #1!

    Yes, but then you went off on other tangents.

  65. Jabber did you read my post and conclude that 9/10=99% or did it occur that it was a typo. You know it’s a typo, so why bring it up? I don’t bring up misspellings of others to discredit their posts. That’s underhanded, the same as when I wrote light speed and meant light year. Some clown jumped all over it. When it was clear that light year was the reference.
    Wattly I do apologize for the remark you quoted. I was not questioning your knowledge of science .Which no doubt is more than mine, I was questioning on what you and others do not understand .Which is what I.D you keep saying that some how it has to do with religion. It does not that is why I posted their link you keep saying it does not use the scientific method. It does. Their web site clearly spells this all out.
    You know I was like all you guys up until 3 years ago. I believed I.D was a movement spawned by fundamentalist Christians in order to discredit sound scientific approach that I was taught in high school. I found out about I.D by accident
    Several years ago their was a story in popular mechanics about research in Japan on bio-nano machines, “now I have to get in the sci-fi realm a little� but if the research ever goes where science points it could very well be the end of the internal combustion engine. As well as the beginning of perpetual motion. Think of it an engine that does not require fuel, produces no emissions with any need for lubrication. When I purchased my computer.(3 years ago) I typed in Bio-Nano engines the site I mentioned had a free 30 minute video for download. I watched the video then pocked around the site A.R.N.
    Which spoke of cell study thru the concept of design? The same approach used in Engineering and mechanics I was skeptical thought I had been rope a doped by a fundamentalist type. As I researched the site however it was clear that it was put together by scientist, many tops in their fields. I never liked Biology much in school So I purchased Behe’s book, as well as listened to the lectures. Their points where to obvious to ignore. It never occurred to me until I read. That this would boost our level of scientific knowledge not retard it
    All though the news and magazines always point at it as movement of religious zealots the truth is far from it. On the contrary I believe it is the next step in scientific advances. As you can see I’m quite excited about it. I can’t see why people on this site are not equally as excited. Some are men that are almost PhD’s. I may have got a little zealous in defense of I.D and I probably took us way off topic. Now I am not a scientist but I am a mechanic .I.D is a mechanical approach Mechanics falls under science in a way. I cant understand why young Educated men can be this skeptical.

  66. I cant understand why young Educated men can be this skeptical.

    Scientists are skeptical about everything. I’ll give you an example. The field I’ve worked in for the past three years is RNA dynamics. Dynamics studies of biomolecules is relatively new, as methods to study it have only recently been developed. Since it is new, it is still being developed. Experiments work, but no one is really sure on how to interpret the results, or how accurate they are. My lab in particular took a rather extreme stance on the side of dynamics, due to some results we got through a variety of studies that showed that RNA is extremely dynamic (or at lesat the one we were looking at). While this was highly exciting, it was actually hard to publish papers on it. Some of the biggest names in chemistry didn’t agree with our results, and tended to give poor reviews for submitted articles. So, we had to keep compiling more data. More and more evidence kept showing that RNA is dynamic. Computer simulations, RDC studies, relaxation studies, it all pointed to dynamics. Finally, provided with overwhelming evidence, the viewpoint has finally been accepted. Even the staunchest opponents of dynamics are now doing dynamics studies.

    As scientists, we have to be skeptical. If we just accepted things at face value, we would be running down 800 tangents based on false assumptions. So, whenever something attempts to radically alter our understanding, it takes a lot of evidence along multipe lines of inquiry to support it.

    THAT is why most scientists aren’t even interested in i.d. There is no evidence for it. I know you don’t agree with me on this point, but most scientists feel that way.

    Which is what I.D you keep saying that some how it has to do with religion. It does not that is why I posted their link you keep saying it does not use the scientific method. It does. Their web site clearly spells this all out.

    The reason i.d. keeps getting equated with religion is because most of the supporters of i.d. are religious fundamentalists. I don’t remember if it was Pennsylvania or Kansas, but the book they wanted to use to teach i.d. was simply a religious creationist book, which was changed to replace the word ‘creation’ with ‘intelligent design’. Also, if you think about what intelligent design is really saying, who is it that did the designing? You could say it was aliens, but the who designed them? At some point, some sort of god had to do the designing. There are some deep religious overtones to i.d.

    I looked through their section on how they showed i.d. uses the scientific method. I found it quite lacking, and disagreed with it. 🙂

  67. Wattly I don’t know how you are not a little more sympathetic, toward I.D scientists.
    After the problems you noted getting your own research in R.N.A dynamics published?
    I think what the scientific community is telling proponents of I.D, “If you believe that there is design. Then prove the designer� That’s a burden of proof that can never be met. Since that aspect of I.D can’t be met then design is dismissed for lack of proof. That to me seems totally unreasonable Now as far as the case you mentioned I don’t know what happened their. It sounds like someone put the cart before the horse. Since I.D and creational science have noticeable differences. Link below:
    This is the link.

    I don’t know if the majority of I.D proponents are Christian fundamentalists. As far as the scientist leading the movement I am almost certain that is not true. I really have tried not to mention Fundamentalist thru out this thread. Simply so they don’t show up slinging Bible versus around, and trashing the thread.
    The only thing I can conclude why fundamentalists have a problem with any aspect of science I.D or Evolution or what ever. Is the fact that most use the Bible only as a rule of faith.. The fact that they are interpreting it incorrectly never occurs to them. When science calls their views into question they assume that Science has made an error. All though the Bible is divinely inspired it does not mean that it is always divinely interpreted. History has so many glaring examples of this that it goes far beyond the scope of this post
    If you went to A.R.N website (I believe you did) and you concluded that it does not use the scientific method. I really don’t know what to say to that. Other than let’s agree to disagree. Given your back ground I’m disappointed,

  68. Well, the reason is that I understand why our research wasn’t published right away. It shouldn’t have been. The prevailing dogma at that time was that dynamics wasn’t important. To go against that dogma, you need some serious evidence. While we had some very nice experiments, a little more work needed to be done to show how they worked, how much you can trust them, etc. I don’t think anyone is asking them to prove the designer. In the case of Behe, people are asking him to show that things can be ‘irreducibly complex’. And everytime he says something is irreducibly complex, people show it isn’t. I remember 10 years ago, people said the eye was irreducibly complex. You can’t see with half an eye, so it must be designed. Then, biologists were able to trace a path from light sensing cells to a complete eye. Did this disprove i.d.? No, they just used other examples. And that is the fundamental problem with i.d. It is like religion, in that they can just switch their argument. No matter what evidence I see, a fundamentalist could say ‘gods will’ to disprove anything. C14 dating says a fossil is 10,000 years old? ‘omfg gods will he stole some c14 from the fossil just to fool you lol earth is 6000 years old’. I can’t disprove that with sciece. On the same line, a i.d. proponent can say ‘the eye is irreducibly complex’. I can then show that it is not, but then they can just say something else is irreducibly complex. It can go on forever. And, the whole time, they haven’t SHOWN it to be irreducibly complex. They have just assumed it is, and left it to scientists to show it’s not. As some of the links I posted earlier pointed out, i.d. is more of a lack of imagination than anything else.

  69. Heh, if you don’t have any evidence to back the theory you’re trying to publish, then maybe a scientific publication isn’t the place to which you should be submitted.

    It’s not that it’s blind unreasonability on the part of scientists, it’s that scientists aren’t going to say “oh, well, you don’t have any evidence at all to back up what you’re saying? Fine, fine! That’s absolutely fine, go right ahead and publish. You, next in line, what do you have? You say slices of bacon have sentient thought? Well, do you have any evidence for this? No? Go right ahead and publish! I don’t see why we should have to have evidence in order for something to be science!”

    Do you see where I’m going with this? In fact, in order for the Kansas board of education to get “Intelligent Design” into the schools, they had to change the definition of science, so that the result wasn’t at all scientific. It’s like if I change the definition of “mathematics” to include jamming different kinds of fruit together with your fists to solve equations.

    More later, but one last thing:

    In Chicago, experts were unable to determine what, exactly, caused the Southwest airplane to skid off the runway. So I made the joke that experts couldn’t explain it, so proponents of Intelligent Design believed it was the result of direct intervention by God.

  70. Also, fixed some of the links that were killing the tables. If at all possible, especially for longer links, can you use the following, please:

    <a href=”http://link.com”>Linked Text</a>

    It’ll show up as the following:

    Linked Text

    Thanks.

    Edit: Though, honestly, I shouldn’t even really be using tables any more, but even then, I think the links would become a problem.

  71. Edit: Though, honestly, I shouldn’t even really be using tables any more, but even then, I think the links would become a problem.

    Can you change the tables to being a % instead of fixed width? You have it set to a little under 800 pixels, and my monitor is 1680 wide. I don’t know what kind of back end you have though, so it might be more trouble then it’s worth. If you need to go fixed width, bump it to 1024, screw the people at 800×600 🙂

  72. Hrm, I’m not keen on relative sizes, because they can end up looking goofy for some people. Plus, more things tend to go wrong with them, and you have to worry about the effects internal contents will have, and etc. And it would probably still have issues with tables breaking from lengthy URLs and such.

    You’re right, though, in that I ought to expand the page width a little. I’ve been considering it.

  73. In Chicago, experts were unable to determine what, exactly, caused the Southwest airplane to skid off the runway. So I made the joke that experts couldn’t explain it, so proponents of Intelligent Design believed it was the result of direct intervention by God.

    That would still make more sense than it evolved at the end of the runway, by random chance
    Seriously though how would investigators approach something like an airplane crash, or a railroad derailment? Well after human error is ruled out they would look at design, or design failure. The reason is obvious if we look at an airplane, we wouldn’t even consider that it came into existence by chance. Why? For two important reasons:
    1 The object is composed of many complicated perfectly arranged parts.
    2 The object was designed for a clear purpose: To fly.
    We immediately know there must have been intelligent beings responsible for this airplane. No scientist would argue with this obvious conclusion.Wattly mentioned the eye despite the rhetoric about scientist tracing a path from light sensing cells to a complete eye. All the scientists in the world working together have never synthesized a human eye. Nor have they proven any such a path as he mentioned.
    The reason we know so much more about the eye,than Darwin did in his day,is because of the cumulative work of many biochemist like Behe.We are now approaching answers to the question of sight, by studying biochemical design. So to say I.D is not science or goes against science is laughable.
    Darwin using the same reasoning also drew a conclusion of the eye evolving from a light sensitive spot to the sophisticated eye (Organs of extreme perfection, and complication). All though he had a good reason it was completely beyond 19th century science. How the eye works that- is, what happens when a photon of light first hits the retina- simply could not be answered. As a matter of fact, no Question about underlying mechanism of life could be answered. How did animal muscle cause movement? How did photosynthesis work? How was energy extracted from food? How did the body fight infection? These questions where unknown at the time.
    Now that these questions are answered it leads to more questions (as I said before) that needs a more fitting explanation.
    It is no longer enough for an evolutionary explanation of that power to consider only the anatomical structure of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century (and as popularizes of evolution continue to do today).Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought where so simple involves extremely complicated biological processes that can not be papered over with rhetoric.
    This does not mean Darwin evolution is completely incorrect. It actually explains a lot, it explains microevolution (or evolution with in a species) very nicely.
    Therefore it always has a place in science, now that so much more is known thru advancement in microscopes and advances in biochemistry I.D offers a challenge to the traditional explanations of evolutional theory. I don’t think this lacks Imagination those who follow lock step with evolutional theory or don’t believe in something bigger than the scientific method, are the ones who lack abstract thought.

    You could say it was aliens, but the who designed them? At some point, some sort of god had to do the designing. There are some deep religious overtones to i.d.

    So What! In the end that will always be the question. That does not mean you have to believe in God to except I.D any more than you have to be an atheist to except evolutional theory.
    The common sense conclusion always points to God any way for good reason.
    That is the need for 1st cause. Everyone with common sense quickly understands that everything in the material universe is explained by a previous cause. Nothing can cause its own existence. Every material object is the end product of a long chain of causes. If we go back far enough (whether I.D or Evolutional theory is used), we end up always asking the ultimate question: why does matter exist at all? Where does it come from?
    Just as every other material object in the universe, matter requires a 1st cause
    To explain its existence .The only answer to that is something outside the material universe created matter to begin with. That power must be spirit because it is outside the material universe. That power must be infinite to create something out of nothing. The gap between nothing and something, between non-being and actual existence, is infinite.
    It takes an infinite power to bridge an infinite gap. Only God has infinite power.

  74. You missed the point of the analogy. The point wasn’t “the plane is like the human body”, the point was “experts haven’t figured it out, so it must have been God”. It’s a joke about how proponents of Intelligent Design go about “science”: Any gaps that have yet to be fully explained are automatically explained with absolute certainty to be direct intervention by God.

    I’m still not understanding your argument for intelligent design being science. “Biochemistry exists, therefore intelligent design is science”? If anything, it harms science. If we make assumptions–well, not even just assumptions, but flat-out declarations with certainty–about something we can’t observe, test, or prove, and then calling that “science”, if we get to a point where we actually can observe and test it, if the results from that are inconsistent with these previously formed (without any evidence, mind) conclusions, instead of assuming that the former conclusions were wrong, we may just end up believing that the NEW conclusions, based on REAL evidence are wrong. And that just destroys the whole thing.

    If we’re going to get into discussions on single-celled organisms resulting in group movement, I’d like for you to read up on slime mold. I can give you a quick crash course: There’s a particular single-celled organism–you’ve probably seen it on logs in the woods, and such–that will function, under prosperous conditions, as single-celled organisms and under less prosperous conditions as one large, multi-celled structure. There are no “leader” or “pacemaker” cells to order them around, it’s just a bunch of smaller organisms getting together and acting as a large organism for the purpose of survival.

    Now, see, that can easily be extrapolated: A single-celled organism groups together under trying conditions to become a larger organism. This organism does a lot better at surviving than the others. At some point, there’s a mutation, so that one of the cells divides but remains attached to the other. So instead of an organism comprised of single-celled organisms, you have an organism comprised of clusters of cells, which probably end up doing better under optimal conditions when they split off as well. This continues to progress. Etc. With the short lifespan of single-celled organisms, and a range of millions of years, it’s not really startling to think that eventually, complex structures would’ve developed that were better suited to survival than single-celled organisms.

    So if “God” is the ultimate explanation, then what created God? Did God create God? If so, what created the ability to create, which led to the creation of God? It’s completely unobservable, and there are billions of different explanations that are all equally “provable”. To make a definite conclusion is to step outside the boundaries of the scientific method.

    And, see, that’s the difference, the key difference that you’ve been missing from the very start: One of the crucial, crucial tenets of science is that nothing can ever be fully proven, only disproven. And even then, it’s more a “this has been proven not to be true for all cases” kind of thing. Now, see, okay, keep that in mind, and consider this: Intelligent Design makes a definite conclusion, with absolute certainty, about something. Not only that, but the thing it concludes is something that is completely unobservable and, thus, unprovable. Thus, it is NOT SCIENCE.

    Let’s say, for instance, that–okay, are you familiar with mitochondria? I hope so. If not, check Wikipedia for the word. Anyway, what if all the stars in our universe are all similar to mitochondria for some kind of giant organism far beyond the scope of our ability to sense, and this entire universe comprises just one cell in its body? Like, our sun and all the other suns provide energy to the cell, but instead of by processing organic chemicals, they use fusion.

    Can you prove this wrong? Well, I say that this is definitely how things are, because it’s the explanation that makes the most sense. So, prove me wrong. Oh, you can’t? Oh, but what’s outside the universe? You don’t know? Well, it must be my theory, then, because that’s the only one that really makes any kind of sense. I mean, the Big Bang and all that only explains what happens inside the universe. There’s a gap there, see? And only my explanation fills it. If you’ve got a better explanation, then I’d like to see it.

    But, see, now you’re getting to a great point, by the way: you’re trying to use Intelligent Design in the only way that makes sense: that God created the universe in the first place. Really, I.D. has no logical argument against evolution. What it really takes issue with is cosmology. Yet still, it’s not a scientific explanation in that it makes a definitive conclusion about something, and something unobservable and unprovable on top of all of that.

    Which is why it’s currently confined to theology and philosophy, until such a time when we’re able to actually observe and test the things it claims.

    One final thing: do you think that about 98% of the scientific community has been stricken with irrational belief in a completely unfounded idea? “Hey, what’s this evolution thing?” “I don’t know, but there’s certainly no evidence for it at all.” “Good, then–I believe it through and through!” The real infinite gap here is the one between the scientific community and your understanding thereof.

  75. Well. This is really starting to get painful for me. Joe, you’re so utterly wrong that I can’t even start correct your mistakes. I’m not going to argue over basic definitions of science and I’m not going to have a argument over the evidence behind evolution. You don’t know anything about science, and have chosen to side with the tiny majority of ‘scientists’ who doubt evolution. That’s fine, but please, don’t try to argue it because you don’t make any sense at all.

    Jabberwock tried to correct you, but I think the flaw is so fundamental that we could exchange these comments for years and never be able to correct your misunderstandings. Believe that there is no evidence for evolution, believe thunder is god farting, I really don’t care.

    I’m done with this evolution vs i.d. crap, because as far as I’m concerned, there isn’t even a debate. If you guys want to keep fighting over it, by all means, but I’m moving on to bigger and better things 🙂

  76. Yeah, I’m getting to that point as well. If you want, Joe, please feel free to register for an account over in the forums and set up a topic there to discuss this with others, but I’ve about reached my limit.

    For a while, I thought I just wasn’t being clear enough, so I kept trying to rephrase things, or elaborate. But I’m not sure how I can possibly be any clearer about this. Wattly’s right: if it hasn’t been grasped by now, we’re asymptotically approaching the point where we’ll be infinitely having this debate. I can feel we’re just approaching the border between “conversation can be resolved” and “conversation will continue forever, irreconcilably”.

    So, unless you have something to offer other than “nuh-UH! It really IS science!” and not really providing an explanation as to how it somehow manages to break the boundaries of science while still being science, then I’m done.

  77. Actually, something interesting about the “planes evolving”, on another topic of discussion, here: It is quite possible that planes evolved as extensions of ourselves.

    There’s the idea that humans also evolve through the technology we create and adapt. For instance, advancements in medicine allow us to live longer and healthier lives, which, in a way, is like an advancement of ourselves. i.e. We are not only ourselves, but everything we invent and create as well, and, thus, every advancement in these things is like an evolution by proxy of ourselves.

    😉

    But, yeah, I recommend that anyone who has any discussions they’d like to continue having about any topics brought up here register for an account on the forums (see link above, or to the left in the nav) and talk about them there.

  78. I actually read a book not too long back (I think it was “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins) that touched upon a similar topic that you’re describing Jabberwock. He pointed out how our ideas actually undergo their own evolution. Ideas that are ‘less fit’ are forgotten quickly, while those that are ‘more fit’ are remembered longer. Think of Newton’s theories, everyone remembers them, even though it’s been 400 years.

    He also compared it to the ability to pass on ‘ourselves’. When you have a kid, it has 50% of your DNA, and 50% of the mother’s. So your child is 1/2 related to you
    his child is 1/4 related, his 1/8, his 1/16, and after a few more rounds of procreation, any relatedness do you gets washed out in the gene pool. You ideas, however, have an ability to last much longer. Think of Newton. His decendents alive today have about as much chance as I do to have a similar genetic makeup as Newton (assuming I’m not related). However, his ideas are still going strong.

    Anyway, it’s been a while so I don’t remember all that he wrote on it, but you might want to check it out.

  79. Come back to me with an explanation of WHY, not WHO. I don’t care WHO says something scientific, I care about WHAT they say and if their arguments are correct.
    Comment by Eric Watt — 11/22/2005
    I did just that which is what got this whole debate going. I can’t help it if you think these scientists are not scientific. Please note that I had no obligation to honor this demand. It was done so with links pro and con at a scientific web site
    The fact that you are getting frustrated that I don’t get It., is a sword that cuts both ways. The fact that you always come back to its religion is frustrating me. You either are not reading the site, or you just don’t get it
    The fact that I.D is the minority opinion does not bother me any more than Atheism is a minority opinion (Even among scientist) bothers you.
    Now that I showed that science has nothing to do with religion you want to move on, fine with me. Where science ends, religion, and philosophy start. Since they can not be measured by material computations or answered with scientific method. I am perfectly happy to whoop butt here just as well. Oh make no mistake you boy‘s got your butts whooped. If theirs anything to learn here is you College guys have a hard time admitting you may be wrong
    I’ll start with Jabbers question:

    So if “God� is the ultimate explanation, then what created God? Did God create God? If so, what created the ability to create, which led to the creation of God?

    Great question the answer is, of course no one made God. God always existed. He alone is the first cause, the uncaused cause on which all other causes depend. We can’t have an infinite series of causes without eventually arriving at the first cause, the cause with no prior cause. Everything else depends on the first cause, but the first cause doesn’t depend on anything. It simply is and always was.
    Now if you’re asking which of the worlds many religions are the closest to the truth. That question can only be answered by the individual.

  80. But how do you know this? And how do you know that what you know is right? And how do you know that your ability to know is correct?

    Again, nothing much new out of what you said, other than the addition of the implication we somehow got our “butts whooped”, which I don’t really see as having happened, considering you’ve done essentially nothing but go “nuh-uh” to everything we’ve said. This is almost a meta-illustration of your tendency to state things without evidence.

    *points to posts 92 and 93* Until you come up with something new–at the very least, some kind of an explanation as to why Intelligent Design is special enough a thing to be included in science while completely breaking all its tenets–then I’ll continue to simply point to posts 92 and 93 (which, by the way, you never really fully addressed) as response.

    P.S. You don’t win arguments simply by declaring you’ve won, you know.

  81. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5807.html

    Woot

    And Joe, I never said I was an atheist, I don’t know where you got that from.

    Also, I asked you to show what they said, and support their arguments. You had a couple posts which I destroyed, so they you just started linking articles online which I destroyed as well. Now, if YOU want to make an actual argument (no links, no quotes, just state your case) I’ll destroy that too.

    Cheers.

  82. “God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul.”

    Yeah, I’m not really atheist, either. I’m more secular humanist, but of a slightly different skew.

    Actions shouldn’t be based on the belief in the existence or non-existence of God. They should be based on applicability to the world around us, and spreading as much benefit to as many as possible.

    I also think that the best way to worship God would be to not believe in him at all. If your actions are tainted by fear of repercussion or desire for reward, how do you know they’re at all genuine? And would God respect more the person who does good of his own volition or the person who does good because they fear being cast into a lake of fire for eternity?

    And honestly, would you really want to spend eternity with a God who would forever burn the man who did good all his life but didn’t believe while allowing into heaven the believer who was only good and only believed to save their own soul?

    If God exists, I certainly wouldn’t want to spend an eternity with him if he were as petty and jealous as most Christians seem to think.

    And etc, etc, etc. There’s a lot to what I believe. In fact, I’m currently (albeit slowly) working on a website dedicated to a description: http://www.secularsavior.com It’s all about why secularism is important and necessary and probably the best way to show respect to God.

  83. Evolutionary theory especially Darwinian theory is supported more by dogma than science. If engineers tried to build space ships the way evolutionary biologist create fanciful theories, there would be no aerospace industry, and I wouldn’t be wanting to fly airplanes.

    Evolutionary speculations (of the Blindwatchmaker variety) are passed off as fact even in the face of an avalanche of contrary evidence. The fact that 37% or so of physicians are sympathetic to ID shows that individuals who deal with biological systems in a life or death context disregard that life was an accident and have serious doubts as to the truthfulness of the Darwinian viewpoint.

    Regarding the wide acceptance of evolution among evoluionary biologists, as Bertrand Russell said, “The fact that an opinion is widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd.”

    Evolutionary theory, as it stands now, is an insult to science that it’s even called science.

    We may not know for sure what happened in the past. At the very least, I would offer that it’s a bit pre-mature to say evolutionary theory is scientific certainty as the theory of Gravity.

    We can count on the theory of Gravity, and so can the space industry. Evolutionary theory can only be counted on to keep evolutionary biologists employed.

    One of the top evolutionary biologists said it so well:

    “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.”

    That’s about where evolutionary biology belongs as far as scientific ideas. Right there at the bottom.

  84. Wow I thought you guys gave up nice to see you back. You both left in a tizzy last time we talked.
    (Quote} :
    Joe, I never said I was an atheist, I don’t know where you got that from.

    Never said you where Wattly you will not find any posts where I made an accusation like that. It’s telling though it also explains a lot. Instead of reading what you think I wrote try reading what I wrote.

    {Quote}
    You had a couple posts which I destroyed, so they you just started linking articles online which I destroyed as well. Now, if YOU want to make an actual argument (no links, no quotes, just state your case) I’ll destroy that too

    You did no such thing! What post did you destroy? Every argument you presented only showed evolution with in a species. Which no one disagrees with. This has been stated repeatedly in Behes book and through out the links I posted.
    You have proof of an ape turning into a human some where, Or the human eye evolving from a light sensitive cell? If you did there would be no discussion.
    Jabber I’m not ignoring you .I’m pressed for time. I will answer you as soon as I can.
    Salvador welcome! This is a fun site hope you can return. Debate can get lively occasionally tempers flare.

  85. If evolution belongs “at the bottom”, then Intelligent Design belongs buried somewhere far below where the bottom ends. Again, again, again, again, again, again, again: It’s one thing to say “this is what we believe to be the most likely explanation, based on the evidence we currently have”, and another thing fucking entirely to say “we can’t observe or test this, but this is absolutely, totally, 100% how things happened, with absolute certainty”. This is the difference between science and neat ideas. Please don’t make me have to explain this again, because this is seriously, seriously the last time.

    No scientist worth his salt is going to declare evolution to be the absolute most certain thing ever. I don’t know where you’re hearing these reports of scientists behaving like this, but it’s certainly a questionable report, considering that the behavior you’re describing is extremely unscientific. So, one of two conclusions can be drawn from these reports you’re giving:

    a) There simply are not any scientists, because all of the people who claim to be are just running around writing fairy tales and saying they’re real.

    b) The people making the reports have an unfamiliarity with science, the scientific method, and scientists.

    Now, given that the people making the reports seem to think that Intelligent Design and its proponents are being totally scientific, evidence strongly points to conclusion ‘b’.

    I think I’m beginning to sense how all of this is coming about:

    People unfamiliar with science don’t understand the evidence-gathering and -testing procedures involved in scientifically sussing out the most credible explanation. They apparently feel that a scientific theory is somehow like philosophy, in that all it takes is someone else saying “hey, that makes sense” in order for it to be validated.

    Then, at some point, one of them comes up with an idea for an explanation for something, and other people say “hey, that makes sense”. This leads the people unfamiliar with the protocols and methods of science to think that the idea is now a scientific theory.

    When real scientists–who operate using evidence and observation–reject them, they can’t figure out why, and end up concluding that scientists are merely adhering to their explanations out of a dogmatic loyalty.

    The reality, of course, is that scientists have accumulated correlating data for decades, and tested this data. They have concluded that evolution–while not a clear-cut, totally transparent theory that covers all the bases–is the most believable explanation we have. And then proponents of Intelligent Design come along and say “you guys are all wrong! It was all designed!” And then the scientists say, “oh, really? Well, what evidence do you have? Who designed it? How?” And the Intelligent Design proponents just sort of scratch their heads and say “why are you rejecting this brilliant theory? Have you seen the eyeball? It was designed! We don’t know how, but we think it was God. All of us agree that this is believable. I think it makes sense. So does Jim.”

    And then, because the proponents of Intelligent Design have no evidence for their hypothesis, scientists remain unconvinced, and continue to support the theory evidence seems to corroborate.

    This lack of understanding of how the scientific community operates is illustrated well by Salvador’s depiction of evolution as an “opinion” that scientists apparently all agree on without any evidence at all.

    (Speaking of which, I’d really like to take this opportunity to point out that you are just totally undermining the case for religious belief, by the way, especially with the Bertrand Russell quote. But if you want to keep arguing along those lines, then go right ahead.)

    There is no “certainty” in science. Nothing can be completely proven. Of course, then, there are going to be varying levels of believability, based on how much evidence we have. Gravity is going to be extremely believable, because we’re constantly given quite ample evidence of its existence.

    A few things, to wrap this up:

    One of the top evolutionary biologists said it so well:

    Unattributed quotes tend not to fly well with me. I could easily quote Mr. Watt, here, and refer to him as a “leading biological researcher”. 😉

    You haven’t really offered any evidence as to why evolution is unbelievable as a theory. What, is there a total lack of evidence? Corrupt evidence? Evidence that the evidence was planted? Etc.

    Joe: Thanks for calling this a “fun site”. I’m glad you think so.

  86. I could easily quote Mr. Watt, here, and refer to him as a “leading biological researcher�.

    Well, but that’s different because it’s true 😉

  87. No response for four days. I’m assuming we’ve achieved Q.E.D.

    This has been a good conversation, even if it was a bit redundant at times. I strongly urge all participants to register on the forums. It may not be buzzing with activity right now, but it hopefully will be soon. And, of course, if people aren’t participating because there’s no participation, we just get into a negative feedback loop. So, um, register and start posting.

  88. Okay, folks; listen carefully:
    Neither Noah’s Flood nor Noah’s God, but PLATE TECHTONICS puts evolutionally-correct layers of seashells on mountaintops. As is common, Pope Chick shoots himself in the foot with the declaration of his “glow-in-the-dark” surrogate, Bob, about seashells on mountaintops. If you REALLY want an excellent refutation of the (STOLEN!) myth of Noah’s Flood, I suggest you go here: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/sorting.htm
    Once again, thank G*D Almighty and Her Nine White Daughters I’m a PAGAN!
    Roll on, my sacred, ancient Mother Earth: And Friggeth thee, St. Chick and his illiterate toady Mr. Coal-munn!!!

  89. All i have to say (besides that chick is a complete idiot) is that i takes a lot of brainpower to design (program, at least) a videogame

  90. 2 things:
    1) Bob tells Jason to come and bring his cousin over. Besides the fact that she is already at Jason’s house, which I find odd, when she sees Bob, she says; “Why did you say those things to my cousin?” (I reworded it a little). So, why did Jason bring that girl if she is not the one angry whith Bob? Why didn’t he bring his cousin. Unless they have a wierd family tree, and he is his own grandpa or something.
    2. If civilization was so advanced before the flood, why didn’t they have andything like, i dunno, boats that could sail? There should have been survivors.

  91. Okay, let’s go with Chick’s version of the world for a second. There is no evolution. Therefore every bacteria and every virus currently in existence was on that boat. How did anybody survive?

  92. Heh, well, see, God just made it okay! And then he made it okay for everyone to reproduce incestually with each other. It’s the Deus ex Machina for every fundamentalist argument. What’s that? Someone found an inconsistency in the fundamentalist Christian worldview? Well, GOD RESOLVES THE TWO, MAGICALLY.

  93. “The Ark was big enough to haul 50,000 animals with room to spare”

    must be a helluva lot of space, since there are more than 25,000 species of animals, birds and dinosaurs that have ever existed

  94. One thing that Mr. Chick forgot to mention, is that his “sources” for all this BS is and unaccredited felon.
    (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Kent_Hovind) Nice try, Jack you have to pull somthing a lot more beliveable out your ass next time

    P.S. seriously dinosaurs and humans together, did someone give him a lobotomy with a plastic spork.

  95. This shit is all familiar to me and valid arguments have already been mad, so I won’t go too much into this. But 50,000 animals? Even if that’s species alone, that far fewer species of animals than we have NOW, not including the 99.99999999% of life on Earth that’s gone extinct already. Personally, I question the ethics of a God that would create a world that would be physically impossible, where there would be too many species than could viably coexist with one another, and then destroying all that biodiversity a few centuries after they’d been created for some mistakes made by the species at the top of the food chain.

    And since when does accepting evolution as an observed, scientifically sound natural process qualify one as wicked? More importantly (this is aimed at all fundies out there) does the biological descent of man from an ancestral ape line really change what Jesus did two millenia ago?

  96. I am back after along time away I hope you are doing well these days Jabber glad to see your site is as lively as ever. Janet you are a dumb cunt .I hope you’re dead and in hell where you belong.
    If you notice my posts from over a year ago Janet; the up tight cunt bitch sexually frustrated cunt act likes a true cunt .What lawyers call the neh uh defense. No reason no logic Nuh huh just a stupid up tight cunt no brains just insults line of reasoning. Maybe by now you have got some cock if anyone is has not seen how fucking ugly you are. Usually cunts like you (if you’re lucky enough to snag a guy at closing time) are usually so drunk they can’t get it up. In my day bictch’s like you would suck our dicks and get kicked to the curb. With the advent of the internet you now have an avenue to run your mouths, there is nothing unique about you. You have to run your mouth because any guy (that’s not drunk) won’t put their cock in it. In my day I wouldn’t waste a bullet on you let alone my seed. You need a pearl necklace, a white ring around the mouth BITCH!
    I tried to appeal to her on an adult level but all I got was typical (fuck you I am a cunt rhetoric). In those days I tried to show my charitable side given the topic, now I will show my blue collar side FUCK YOU CUNT Janet. You sexually frustrated uptight no artistic talent son of cunt bitch!
    Now lets get to cut and paste Wattly who fancies himself as a scientist but comes to us courtesy of black, and white V.W bug with geek squad written all over it.Wattly fancy himself as God in High school he was the kid on the sidelines with laminated doctors note.100% geek, swirly material all the way.
    What is ironic is the misfits that need God the most are the ones that cry out his non-existence.
    Freaks right out of fuckining a side show!

  97. “Sexually frustrated”, huh? PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF! and whatnot.

    As I’m not the type to typically delete comments from my site, I’m going to leave your trite little ejaculation of word-puke up there, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that this absolutely insane outpouring of anger and stupidity is coming from a fundamentalist Christian. I tell you one thing, if there is a God, and he lets YOU into heaven, I certainly don’t want to be anywhere fucking near that place. I’d rather have my spinal column replaced with molten lead and angry wolverines.

    Aside from that, your comment is something far too belligerent and just plain retarded to interest me in providing much of a response. Intelligent comments – even rude and foul-mouthed and angry and misguided ones – are always welcome here, but I’ll thank you to keep your priapismic Patriarchal idiot fish-shit as far away from here as possible.

    Eat a bag of dick, and kindly die, sir. To return the kind sentiment you sprinkled all over the place like flower petals made of anus scrapings and rat puke: May you and all your loved ones be raped to death by gargantuan, herpetic space dongs.

  98. I don’t know if this was already mentioned in the comments, but life is too short to read 118 comments about this tract, so I’ll just say it even if it has already been explained.
    The part with “seashells atop mountains” is easy to explain. Mountains are formed when the tectonic plates of the world press against one another and press upwards, creating mountains. Some mountains were formed beneath the sea, ergo some ocean fossils will be found atop mountains because some mountains were formed underwater. A much more beleivable explanation than an all destroying “global flood”

  99. Watch subject. Bush is forever saying that democracies do not invade other countries and start wars. Well, he did just that. He invaded Iraq, started a war, and killed people. What do you think? Is killing thousands of innocent civilians okay when you are doing a little government makeover?
    If ever there was ever a time in our nation’s history that called for a change, this is it!
    We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!

  100. Jabber, was that 2007 comment from “Joe Coleman” from the same guy as all the others? It seemed much more hostile than the others. Almost as though someone were trying to discredit him.

    I’d like to say as a moderate Christian that I really enjoy both your hilarious bashing of Jack Chick tracts, and the deep, philosophical thought you share.

    I especially liked your point about truth, and it’s something that resonates with my own thinking as well. I can’t guarantee I’ll even remember to come back here and see if you respond, so I’ll just throw out a few ideas I hope you’ll enjoy.

    I’ve come to the conlusion that, even assuming a standard, non-literaly understanding of the Bible, that Christianity does not have the monopoly on Christ. We, of all people on earth, may explicitly declare our belief in him. This, however, does not in any way restrict him only to us.

    That is to say that people of other religions and beliefs who are “Christ-like” are in no way black flagged for not believing in . The way into heaven may only be Christ and Christ alone, but everyone was invited to the party.

    In fact, I tend to believe that hell is nothing more than a self-selected separation from God and heaven. Just as you would refuse to reside in Heaven were Jack Chick (circa his tracts, there’s always the infinitecimal possibility of reform) to be found there upon your arrival, people like him will be shocked to find ones they though sure to be damned having a good time. Shocked enough, perhaps, to refuse to enter into a place with those Jews/Blacks/Homosexuals/Buddhists/Sinners etc.

    I can’t remember where I was really going with all that. I tend to meander around and forget my place. In that same thought, I might forget I ever made this comment and never return. In that case I’ll see you in hell… or heaven, depending on where people like Jack Chick go. We can strike up a conversation there.

    Ah, but that’s being judgemental of me. For the sake of humor perhaps, but as being overly judgemental is one of the things I loath I tend to over-censor myself in that area or otherwise I feel like a prick later over what people assure me are minor infractions.

    I just noticed you have forums. Perhaps I shall sign up.

  101. I am pretty sure that there are more than 50,000 organism of life on this Earth today, how does one explain the increase of species if not for evolution, even if you do believe in Noah.

  102. Gawd, that Coleman dude’s formatting was difficult to digest.

    I cannot believe I sat through all 126 comments, one of which was posted only four short days ago.

    I need to sleep now. I feel accomplished.

  103. …You mean their are people out there who deliberately sidestep certain evidence because it doesn’t adhere to their belief, Jack?

    Why does that sound so familiar?

  104. “That’s another thing… where the fuck did all the water go, then? If there was enough water to bury the entire planet during this supposed “flood”, where did it all end up going? The magical floating water sphere isn’t there anymore, and the entire earth isn’t still buried in water, so what happened to all of it?” Well.. thoretically the massive tectonic shifts could lift all of the continents up and lower the sea down so that the land at the end of the flood was actually due to massive geological changes…

    The whole idea is bullshit of course (what, with the floating layer of water and whatnot. Where did he even get that?), but that is one theoretical way it could have happened. Maybe he thinks the whole earth was more flat before God let down the water force field.

  105. DAMN! IT”S CHUCK NORRIS! no wonder he could count to infinity twice! chuck norris is god’s servant!

  106. Actually flood-like event did happen. Several millenia ago Black sea wasn’t connected to Mediterranean and was lake. Then in space of short time period (few days or weeks) the wall (or dam if you will) separating them collapsed and Med flowed into Black sea as it (Black sea) had lower sea level. Waters rose fast (couple of meters daily) and people living on it’s shores had to trek constantly to stay ahead of water. Naturally event of such proportions would stick to collective minds and be passed from generation to generation. and as we know in oral traditions things get embellished, exaggerated etc so local catastrophic flood becomes world-covering event.

    And as this event happened close to Fertile Crescent and one of cradles of civilisation it was passed from civilisation to civilisation and distorted in process. Which is why you can find flood-like events in most MidEastern mythologies. And of course Judaism and Christianity developed in that region as well so they incorporated that event.

  107. This is stupid.

    Girl: The earth is billions of years old and everyone knows it

    Man: No! The earth is 6,000 years old, and it’s proven

    Girl: Ok you’re right

    Apparently, the man believes that anything published by Chick Publications is right.

    I don’t get the problem of taking college classes on theology and the study of earth and life. People try so hard to get into college, as a college education is required to get a non minimum wage job. Chick had to go to college for Religion, English, Business, whatever he got. To him, he believes that

    “I don’t need to go to college. I have the lord, and he keeps me safe. Even though i flip burgers and I am about to be evicted, it is better that I have Jesus in my heart and not disproving him by majoring in Art Science”

    BTW, I don’t think Art Science is a class, I needed a point.

  108. i’ve noticed a trend. every christian depiction of eden and the ark of noah has your typical assortment of familiar animals, mostly african (apparently lions and giraffes did exist in the middle east) and now dinosaurs also existed in the ark days. but if “every species” was sboard the ark, why do we never see ark pictures that include, say, kangaroos? or polar bears? or american bison?, or llamas? pr ga;apagos iguanas? or penguins? granted, itll probably be hard for a polar bear to survive in a hot middle east climate. and how about whales? and if the ark included dinosaurs, did it have giant sloths? saber-toothed tigers? and what did the animals eat? assuming that noah carried two of each species in the ark, and if the carnivores kept eating meat, every herbivore species on earth would be extinct by now. and 50000 species of animals? that’s a very low denominator. according to wikipedia, there are 2,277 species of rodents actually, which just indicates that 50000 species is a very small number. and new species keep popping up every day. so i guess god didnt have enough water to flood places like australia, the galapagos and madagascar.

  109. “19-year-old college drop-out videogame designer”? Are you insinuating that the only videogame designers are college dropouts? I’ll have you know I’m going to college, and I plan to graduate, and plan to become a videogame designer myself!

    The rest of the Chick Dissection I personally don’t find offensive at all. Just that part at the end about videogame designers.

  110. “There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.” first of all this is primarily because brain surgeons and astrophysicists are in science related people, and go with that with the most evidence, whil chrisianity has very little evidence it is baised on faith, however i think you will find that psychologists, sociologists, and historians and more religos only in relation to brain surgeons and are in fact quite consitant with the general population.

    less specifically i would congradulate joe on posting on this site in which he must expect his arguments to be picked over, I would disagree with many of his arguments some of them do make sence and would propt an undecided person to side with religon, however in my opinion the evidence against the bible and many christian belifs is far greater that the arguments he has preposed which do stand up to common sence, at least we must give him credit on the basis of not being jack chick.

    on the subject of belife, i would say that their is no way to prove that God does not exist, however to me i find no proff of his existance making the best current theory in favor of “science” however even if we acknoledge that the big bang is correct, and the same for evolution, the age of earth and so on we can still not say that their is no God, and these two are not at all in contest. no proof exists against god, nor any proof for him/her/it in the end it is a matter of faith, and i do not belive. the bible on the other hand presents facts and opinions and events which can be proven or dissproven as with each religon’s particular belifes and as more evidence comes to light we can make more scientific theorys and baised on the current evidence preposed the bible theory is as disporved as any theory can be (we can never be 100% certain) thus while I cannot say God does not exist, nor can argue agaist sombody who says he does, and although i do not dislike christains, although i do argue against them, i do dislike people like jack who prepose the bible as if all the evidence against it does not exist. the only valid argument that jack has is that he Knows the bible is true He has Faith, and this argument means nothing to us, and tips the scales in no way, leaving us in very little doubt about the falsity of the bible. offering EVINDENCE in support of the bible is a laughable consept and i for one laugh at the Jabberwocks clear and humerous rebuttles of this evidence that jack provides.

  111. Here’s a tiny little problem I noticed with the Noah’s Ark story. What about Mayflies and other insects that only live a few days? With only two of every animal wouldn’t bugs die off pretty quickly? And continuing about insects, what about hive animals? You can’t take a queen ant or bee out of a hive surrounding with only one drone and expect it to live long.

  112. They missed the part where the more developed animals’ fossils are at the top of the dirt masses because they ran to the hills for safety.

    When I came across that one it was like when a lying 8 year old comes up with some ridiculous but logical-sounding anecdote hoping this one thing will add some sort of validity to his entire argument….

  113. Seashells on top of mountains…wait, is Jack insinuating that Mt. Ararat WASN’T in an area of continental collission? Oh, right, elevations of landmasses don’t change on Earth. Ever. That’s why there’s no such things as earthquakes.

  114. …What’s with Tien on page 7? Is anime the work of the devil?
    Also give that Hitler hated homosexuals,Jewish people and quite a few other things that Jack hates something tells me he’s a little bit too interested in the final solution.

  115. God, Bob looks as smug as he talks, probably even more so. I think he’s the first character I’ve wanted to actually hate-rape.

  116. Wow…

    Just, wow…

    I knew Jack’s God was an asshole before, but now it is presented in an all new light!

    He has Noah build a gigantic, brick-shaped boat and catch two of EVERY animal on earth and then afterwards, for no other reason than to show he could have helped with that daunting task, he helps by closing the fucking door.

    Gee, thanks Lord. That sure was the most difficult thing to this whole ordeal. What would we ever do without you!

    And then sometime afterwards, he promises to never do it again.

    Honest, you guys! I won’t drown the world ever again! Those days are behind me!

    …Next time I’ll just use fire.

    Yeah, that holy asshole can go eat a holy dick. Jack’s God is a complete and total prick.

    BUT WAIT, MY PROFESSORS LIED TO ME!!

    Son of a bitch, son of a BITCH!

    Lord Jesus, who is the lord and also God, please save me! I’ve been evil and wicked through my ignorance and some sin my apparent ancestors committed! I really didn’t mean to, but yeah! Please forgive me and ejaculate into one of my most vital organs! I don’t want to go to some eternal lethal lava land!

    It’s evolution or Jesus, what is MY choice?
    My choice is to drown out the memory of this awful tract with a generous amount of alcohol.

  117. “Sin had corrupted the entire human race… giving them third eyes, transforming them into members of KISS, making them wear raincoats, removing their eyes!”
    Seriously jack, most of those stereotypes didn’t even exist during that time. If your going to pull “evil person” stereotypes from other time frames why not just put some Khorne Beserkers and Chaos Sorcerers in there while your at it?

    “I never understood this “god is three entities, but the same entity”

    well I have a theory for you there man.

    The 3 aspects of god are in fact… The chaos gods.

    God == Khorne. Since he loves to kill so much
    Holy Spirit == Nurgle. plagues of ejypt etc.
    Jesus == Tzeentch, because his sphere is change and hope.

    That just leaves…

    Satan == Slannesh, he’s in hell because Khorne (god) doesn’t like him.

  118. That is approximately 190,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1.9×1020 gallons.

    You forgot to include the superscript HTML tag in your copy & paste there, because that’s actually 1.9×10^20 gallons.

  119. wait a minute.

    >>“Is that Bob?” What, she didn’t remember? She’s still mad at him about something he said to her, but she doesn’t even know who he is?<<

    Something he said to her? Where does it say, that Bob said it to her?

  120. So God owns the earth. Therefore if he wants to destroy it, this is his business. Well of course if you’re sort of Almighty than maybe you can destroy whatever you feel like without any need for ownership or even having a concept of property.

    Actually I’ve seen Christians arguing with this ownership thing in analogy to the prime mover argument. Everything has a rightful owner so people also have to be owned so there has to be a prime owner i.e. God. Seems Max Weber was on the right track that there is a link between capitalist and protestant ideology.

  121. You know, I’ve come up with a random theory: Noah’s Ark could fit all those animals because IT WAS BIGGER ON THE INSIDE.

    Doo-wee-oooooooooh…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *