If you are up for a protest of Ken Ham; he will be in Texas promoting Creationism to homeschoolers


Lilandra is a username from a little known comic book character.  In real life, I named my children after comic book characters, so my geek credentials cannot be questioned.   My husband is a large biker, cyber-viking ape, that opines about religion, and knows his place in a cladogram. In her spare time she is also a None. Read the comment policy before posting.

Lilandra is a username from a little known comic book character. In real life, I named my children after comic book characters, so my geek credentials cannot be questioned. My husband is a large biker, cyber-viking ape, that opines about religion, and knows his place in a cladogram. In her spare time she is also a None. Read the comment policy before posting.

Ken Ham was asked by the Texas Home School Coalition, the most prominent home school lobby in Texas, to speak at their convention on Aug 1 through 3. While I agree with the right to home school, if it is done by parents, who are educated in the subject they are teaching, or if they aren’t, have access to certified teachers through online public schools or home school co-ops. I don’t agree with homeschooling being abused to mislead children about the science behind evolution.

I am not exactly sure why the THSC, whose stated mission is to support parental home-schooling rights, would want to invite Ham to speak at their convention.  The thought of children at the mercy of outdated pseudoscience makes me ill.  This organization must know AIG’s mission…

“to train others to develop a biblical worldview” and “to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a ‘millions of years old earth’ (and even older universe).”

My more cynical side thinks they do know AIG’s mission and agree with it, or he wouldn’t have been invited. My personal experience growing up as an old earth creationist in the city where this convention is being held tells me that many of THSC members most likely support him speaking there. This part of Texas once had the Revisionist Terri Leo at the helm of the State School Board.

The Texas GOP has such contorted districts that they are being disputed in the Supreme Court. It is part of a Republican effort here to gerrymander conservative districts around Houston in a desperate attempt to keep the state Red. The growing minority population is predicted to shift the state at least to purple in as little as 6 years.

More urban parts of Houston are diluted with suburban areas.

More urban parts of Houston are diluted with suburban areas.

*Edit for comparison look at this map…

 

Texas's major populated areas Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas/Fort Worth are Blue.

Texas’s major populated areas Austin, San Antonio, Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth are Blue.

In fact Obama carried those cities in 2012.

Politics may seem mostly unrelated to Ken Ham’s appearance to speak to avid, creationist home-schoolers in one of the most religious parts of the state. However, it does gives you a snapshot of why there is a demand for young earth creationism.

In any case, I think this is a good opportunity to protest children being indoctrinated with young earth creationism.  The family is seriously considering making a trip down there to say no to ignorance. The date is really close to Camp Quest Texas sleepover camp starting on August 4th.

*PS If you aren’t already aware Aron is trying to raise 5,000 dollars for Camp Quest Texas before two other certain known atheists. He has 24 days left, and at this time he has 1270.00 raised. His most dastardly rival is at 2810.10 raised as of now. If he defeats this guy, he will dress up like a nun and recite the Lord’s Prayer. He won’t even need to shave off his beard for realism.  Everybody wins no matter, who you donate to, because Camp Quest Texas educates children in science and critical thinking.

Comments

  1. Lord Narf says

    My more cynical side thinks they do know AIG’s mission and agree with it, or he wouldn’t have been invited.

    Uhhhhhh, that’s not cynical, man. We know that the homeschooling movement is largely driven by anti-science, ultra-conservative fundies who don’t want the state brainwashing their children with liberal ideas about tolerance and un-Christian morality.

    Sure, there are people who genuinely home-school their children because the local public schools suck, and they truly can do a better job of educating their children. They’re a tiny minority, though.

  2. Rando says

    Why does this crap keep happening on my birthday?! Last year Mike Huckabee’s anti gay Chic Fil A support rally happened on my birthday, now I have a Ken Ham stupidity circle jerk happening on my birthday.

    • Lord Narf says

      They’re doing something stupid of note on about 150 days of any given year. That means you’re going to get a lot of duplications, between any two years. Luck of the draw.

  3. Lord Narf says

    And wow, I just looked at the map. Yeah, looks like they’re trying to gerrymander Houston into inconsequence. What the hell is with district 18?

    • says

      I updated the post with a red/blue map to show you how ridiculously contorted the gerrymandering is. Texas’s district 35 stretches from Houston to Austin, and is one of the top ten most contorted in the country.

  4. stever says

    Just curious: who assigned red, the “Enemy” color on NATO wargame maps (and presumably the “Friendly” color on Soviet maps) to the Republicans?

  5. Joanie says

    Why are you so bigoted and intolerant? Don’t you believe in freedom of religion and the exercise thereof?

    • Lord Narf says

      Sure, legally, people are free to believe whatever silly, religious nonsense they want, but raising your children to believe unscientific, factually-untrue things is likely to harm them, intellectually. Eventually, if affects the rest of us. If we have widespread indoctrination and denigration of science, it will eventually harm our society.

      I live in this country, too, and I’d prefer to be around more people who have discarded Bronze Age myths and superstition.

      I’d also prefer that our society get over fundamentalist Christianity, because of its bigoted, intolerant worldview, to use your terms. Speaking out against bigots is not being bigoted against their worldview. That’s not what the word means, in practical application. That’s a common, shit argument that many of the fundamentalists like to trot out, when we tell them to stop being sexist, racist, homophobic assholes.

      • Joanie says

        “I can’t hear you…I can’t hear you…(expletive, expletive) blah, blah, blahbbidy, blah…CHILD ABUSER!!!!” Yeah, that’s how your rant came across to me. Rambling about your opinions with a few vile uses of the English language does nothing for your cause. What a COMPLETE hypocrite you are too. You are so dense to not see that you are making judgments against things YOU are guilty of doing; stifling individual freedoms. You’d…”prefer to be around more people who have discarded Bronze Age myths and superstition” (your words)? Well, please -by all means- GO and find them and like, be around them and stuff. Nobody’s stopping you. What gives you the right to determine who’s opinions should be allowed and whose should be silenced in this world? Where do you get ANY authority on the issue at all? And child abuse? Laughable! I should say the same for the likes of you trying to put a gag on other individuals.

        • Lord Narf says

          Let me guess, two curse words, and you plug your ears and stop listening?
          That’s pretty funny that you heard the words “child abuser”, since I never used them. The most I said was that doing something causes the children intellectual harm … because it does.

          I do hang out with more intellectually rigorous people, thank you. Your advice is unnecessary, since I’m already doing so.
          I’m just terrified of what people like Ken Ham’s acolytes are trying to do to this country. We already have enough issues as it is. The harm that Ken is trying to do to our educational system could have long-lasting effects. It’s going to take a while, but this is the sort of thing that leads to the fall of superpowers. I’d like to turn it around, if we can.

          • Joanie says

            Yes, well I’m sure you get quite the ego trip from hanging out with more “intellectually rigorous people”, but I’m not impressed. You really don’t come across as being very intellectual to me; just pushy, egotistical, and quick to judge and hate. Yes I said, “hate”. The classic atheistic cop out. The entire vibe here is HATEFUL, not helpful. That attitude has NEVER been good for the whole of society, so spare me your concern for the “intellectual harm of children”. I think instead of mocking and ridiculing, you need to take a good look in a mirror, Mr. Narf. And please, for the love of…well you know…stop pretending to be an “intellectual” by regurgitating the same atheistic mantra and hiding behind “so-called” intellectuals. Do you not have any original thoughts of your own?

          • Monocle Smile says

            The irony of a religious zealot accusing someone else of having no original thoughts is so thick you can cut it with a knife. It also makes me cry a little.

      • Khadijah Abdu-Salaam says

        “…but raising your children to believe unscientific, factually-untrue things is likely to harm them, intellectually”

        Got any data to support this opinion? No shortage of great thinkers in society have been religious people. By the data, it appears that the human being is well able to separate their religious beliefs from their rational existence.

        “Eventually, if affects the rest of us. ”

        If the first opinion cannot be proven, the opinion immediately above has no basis.

        “I live in this country, too, and I’d prefer to be around more people who have discarded Bronze Age myths and superstition.”

        Yes, I agree that diversity seems to be a failure. It leads to harsh attitudes towards others and distrust, unfortunately. A Harvard sociologist released a peer-review paper on this a few years back, and he was quite disturbed his research disproved everything that he personally believed about the benefits of diversity.

        (Former middle school science teacher here): Teaching on creation and evolution adds to up about .005% of the total science education up to but not including AP Biology. You need to seriously consider that the problem here is not what the small number of homeschoolers are being taught in religion, but the fact that you’re a control freak.

    • jcarr says

      “Don’t you believe in freedom of religion and the exercise thereof?” – Joanie

      Wait….are you admitting that creationism is religion? Very good. Then you can stop trying to push that religion into science classes, correct? Evolution will be taught in science class right alongside the theory of gravity and tectonic plate theory, creationism will be taught in church right alongside the ten commandments and the resurrection. Both in their proper homes.

      Fair enough, Joanie?

      If it really was as simple as an expression of religious freedom, Ham probably wouldn’t have so much criticism leveled at him from both Christians and non-Christians who fear his drive to push the religious belief of creationism into science classes, undermining legitimate and massively-supported science in the minds of impressionable youth.

  6. Free Thinker says

    Personally, I believe in the freedom to think what you want and believe what you want instead of the Establishment telling you what is true. Evolution – Creation – Spontaneous cosmic vomit. Ken Ham – right or wrong – is free to speak his mind and any organization is free to host him. Anyone trying to silence him has become the oppressor. Tables have turned, Dude. Don’t be the Silencer.

    • Lord Narf says

      Sure, he’s free to say whatever he wants, and we’re free to denigrate groups who take him seriously and promote his lies. We’re not proposing legal sanctions against him.

    • coragyps says

      Ken is indeed free to speak his piece on dinosaurs coexisting with people. I’m free to speak my piece on how he’s a silly sack of shit. Though I’m usually a bit more polite than that out in public…

      This is one of the guys ( the Institute for Creation Research has a booth at the convention, too) that encourages “teaching the controversy” in our public schools, too. To my grandbabies. On my tax nickel. Derision is what he needs, and it needs to be loud.

  7. Ben Masters says

    It is a mistake to believe that science and reason are sources of truth.

    It can even be shown that all theories (of science), including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.
    Karl Popper; (1902-1994);Conjectures & Refutations; 1965; p192

    … there is not a single law of nature which we know to be valid; the laws of nature are hypotheses which we assert tentatively.
    Hans Hahn; (1879-1934); Logic, Mathematics and Knowledge of Nature; 1933

    If you are depending on science and reason for certainty, you will be sorely disappointed. Both are sources of nothing but error and neither is a source of truth- only Revelation can supply us with truth.

    • Lord Narf says

      Science and reason are the best sources of models that describe how reality works. Are any of our current models likely to be 100% accurate? No. But they’re accurate within acceptable margins to allow us to examine the world around us and make predictions.

      And yes, our mental institutions are full of people who are receiving revelations from God, Napoleon, and the shape-shifting, lizard people who run our world. Which method do you propose, for us to tell the difference between someone who’s receiving true revelation and someone who’s simply schizophrenic or suffering from some similar dissociative personality disorder?

      I’ve seen holy books, whose “truth” is dead wrong, including the Bible. Which would you rather have, a close approximation of reality or declared absolute “truths” that are nothing approximating the truth that they claim to be? Claims of revelation are bankrupt, without accompanying evidence to verify that revealed truth. No religions have that sort of evidence, or they wouldn’t be religions anymore.

      • Khadijah Abdu-Salaam says

        ” Which method do you propose, for us to tell the difference between someone who’s receiving true revelation and someone who’s simply schizophrenic or suffering from some similar dissociative personality disorder?

        I would personally propose not constructing false dichotomies. The fact that their are mentally illl people in the world whose delusions have a religious angle is not relevant to any reasoned discussion on the topic of of raitonalism vs religion.

        “No religions have that sort of evidence, or they wouldn’t be religions anymore.”

        Ah. Now, THAT is an accurate statement.

    • Monocle Smile says

      Yeah, science and reason aren’t sources of truth. Never mind that you TYPED THAT DRIVEL ON A COMPUTER. Seriously, do you people think that frickin’ FAIRIES lighting up your screen? There’s some magic soup that pours through the wall outlet?

      I’m just having difficulty grasping how people can so proudly reject knowledge and embrace the equivalent of flinging their own poo in its stead.

      • fran says

        “magic soup” Hey is that the same soup that we all came from or a different brand?

    • says

      Very well, Ben. As you reject all science, I expect you to immediately do the following:

      1. Stop living in a house or similar building. This was created by architecture and engineering, two scientific and mathematical disciplines. You must go live in a cave, or a stylish tree.
      2. Do not drive a car. Again, engineering. Walk everywhere, except…
      3. …Not in any cities or towns. All that science-created stuff: buildings, streets, traffic lights, airports, cars and buses…not for you.
      4. Food from grocery stores was produced by agriculture. You can’t have it. Do not eat any food that you do not scavenge, pick from trees or roots, or kill yourself. If you hunt, you must not use tools. You must kill and skin your prey with your bare hands, and eat it raw, unless you can find a naturally-occurring fire (from a lightning strike, say) to cook it with. You may not start your own fires.
      5. Poor vision? Too bad. No glasses for you.
      6. Naturally, you must surrender your phone, computer, tablet, whatever else you have like that, plus…
      7. Your clothes. Get rid of them. Textiles = science, dude. If you want to wear animal skins, I guess that’s okay, but curing the skins to make clothing would be a scientific endeavor, so it’s best you just stay hidden so no one but the Lord can see your nakedness.

      Have fun! I’m sure your God will see to all your needs!

  8. Lord Narf says

    Christ, Lilandra, where are we pulling all of the religious nuts from, on this post? We’ve got a lot more than usual. I guess you tripped a few good search-words, huh?

        • lehman scott says

          Probably more so. The second wave, if they show up, will likely be more along these lines: “Tony Pierce To the atheist & many on the extreme left either in religion or politics…”freedom of speech” or “freethought” is only allowed and narrowly defined by their inane and dangerous views! Bless you Ken as you share!”

          Kenny just can’t seem to stop himself these days… like a cornered and wounded animal, all he can seem to do lately is blindly rage and flail about at anything that he perceives to be a threat to his survival…

          • Lord Narf says

            The mindless cheerleading could be more pointless than that, yeah. Hopefully they won’t allow it through moderation, if the person doesn’t also say something meaningful.

            Hmm, not sure Aron and Lilandra even have that turned on, now that I think about it. They don’t generally get as much crap as AXP, for example.

          • Lord Narf says

            Ah, apparently they do have moderation turned on, for new posters, to guard against spambots. The responses to Comment 13 appeared a bit out of order. I’ve seen theignored over on AXP, but apparently that was his first comment on this blog.

      • theignored says

        lehman scott would be able to tell you all just how hypocritical I think that AIG/Ken Ham’s pleas for religous or academic freedom really are. Long story short, this is a link from the forum we frequent where I had posted a bunch of screenshots of my comments on AIG’s facebook page…both before and after they took my remarks down.

        • Lord Narf says

          That reminds me of the forums involved with Expelled the Movie. A bunch of people complaining about censorship of their crazy ideas, while themselves engaging in massive, systemic censorship of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

          Very classy, guys.

          • lehman scott says

            yahh, ti has been doing an exemplary job documenting how Ken pathetically tries to protect his flock from any critical thought and reasoned arguments which might possibly infect the minds of his followers… and although sad, it’s not at all unexpected given their growing desperation…

          • Lord Narf says

            Doesn’t he realize the risk of sending his sheltered minions out into a forum over which he doesn’t hold ultimate moderation controls?

          • lehman scott says

            I doubt it. Based on similar past occurrences he probably knows that his creobots will stick to their standard MO of driving by, dipping their toes in the water, and then running away back to the safety of Ken’s intellectual cave where they can comfortably tell their creationist stories huddled around the campfire and make ocher drawings of saddled dinosaurs on their soot-stained walls of impenetrable rock, keeping all intruders from entering their sanctuary for any length of time which might make any of them think at all skeptically…

          • Lord Narf says

            Well, Joanie is returning for a few rounds. We’ll have to see if she ever says anything of substance, though. Not looking good, so far.

      • Lord Narf says

        Heh, thanks. I have a few weeks off … by which I mean unemployed, until I can pick up a new contract … so I’m a little on the bored side.

        Playing whack-a-mole can be amusing, for a few hours. They’re not even saying anything that I haven’t already addressed a dozen times, in other conversations. I always have this nervous feeling that I’m going to hear all sorts of tough arguments that I don’t know how to deal with, and that feeling always ends up being completely unjustified.

        • says

          These arguments are what they tell themselves, so they don’t see the truth. There are only going to be so many ways to not see reality.

  9. Ben Masters says

    All knowledge is acquired thru faith. You have placed your faith in sources (science / reason) that are guaranteed not to lead to truth or even a level of probability. You are mistaken if you think that science can provide any level of certainty.

    All science is based on Induction:
    Here is Bertrand Russell, an enemy of Christ like you, but a lot smarter:

    All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. … If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the arguments upon which all scientific laws are based.
    Bertrand Russell; (1872-1970); The Scientific Outlook; 1931/1962; p74

    Scientific theories are not only equally unprovable, and equally improbable, they are also equally undisprovable. The recognition that not only the theoretical but all the propositions in science are fallible, means the total collapse of all forms of dogmatic justificationism as theories of scientific rationality.
    Imre Lakatos; (1922-1974); Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge; Imre Lakatos; ed.; 1970; p103

    It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely ZERO.
    Karl Popper; (1902-1994);Conjectures & Refutations; 1965; p192

    You are betting your soul on sources Guaranteed to lead you astray.

    • Lord Narf says

      You are betting your soul on sources Guaranteed to lead you astray.

      Ah, I knew we would get to threats of hell and emotional manipulation, eventually. You lose. The moment you use manipulative bullshit like that, you’ve just lost.

      Doesn’t matter what you want to say about science. For one thing, you’re wrong. Science has the track record. Science gives us results. Religious revelation gives us nonsense.

      That doesn’t even matter, though. However you try to cast doubt on science, it’s still better than stories told by a bunch of schizophrenics who “talk to God”.

      It’s the same as creationist bullshit. They don’t have an argument. They only attack biological evolution, without providing any support for their own position. No matter what you say about science, you can’t provide any support for the validity of your revelation of “truth”. What will you use to determine what is true revelation? What’s your methodology?

      • Khadijah Abdu-Salaam says

        “Ah, I knew we would get to threats of hell and emotional manipulation, eventually. You lose. The moment you use manipulative bullshit like that, you’ve just lost.”

        Why? If I engage in a debate on climate change, and I take the skeptics view, I am told that I am “betting the planet” or “facilitiating the end of the earth” by my opponents.

        How different?

  10. Carole says

    To offer a perspective:

    1. Though popular, evolution is not undisputed – plenty of non-religious scientists question evolution and have found it flawed. Both evolution and creationism start with a point which cannot be observed with the scientific process, and both use observable fact to support views thereafter. Hence, I’m not sure “primordial soup to frog to prince” has any room to scorn “in the beginning God” in the name of science.

    2. The above point and parental/religious freedom are what make it unfair to impose your view on someone else’s children. Were the situation reversed, I doubt you would want your children to be forced to adopt creationism some group of people found evolution factually lacking and called it child abuse, would you?

    3. Most scientific pioneers and great minds which formed our country, (not to mention many brilliant scientists today), were “indoctrinated with young earth creationism” or embraced it at a later age. Shall we assume these men imbeciles?

    4. Our country has many things on which people are divided, and this isn’t good for our culture. Isn’t it important to respectfully disagree with one another, respectfully exchanging facts and humbly considering the possibility that we may have missed something? It brings to mind the quote, “The man who is brutally honest is far more fond of the brutality than he is the honesty.” If people are truly in error, I posit the best remedy is to offer help/instruction instead of hostility, and compare facts instead of hurling insults. Perhaps you could arrange a meeting with Mr. Ham to exchange ideas if you’re really interested in finding out *why* intelligent people (honest!) find creation and young earth a viable option.

    Thank you for the listen.

    • Lord Narf says

      1. Name one. Name one non-fundamentally-religious scientist who disputes the basic fact of biological evolution … not disputes minute details but disputes the core facts.
      Your second point isn’t a valid comparison. Biological evolution, cosmology, and geology all have an overwhelming preponderance of physical evidence supporting them. We don’t have to be there to see it to construct a working model from the evidence. Creationism not only doesn’t have sufficient supporting evidence; it has a mass of evidence that falsifies it.

      2. The above point is invalid, so we can discard that part. You can teach whatever other crap you like, but the state has a vested interest in teaching valid science and scientific methodology to all of its citizens. If you want to layer your Bronze Age mythology on top of that, then it’s your right, but I feel sorry for your children.

      3. Actually, many of the founders of our country were deists. A few were atheists. You won’t hear about that on Fox News, of course.
      You’re presenting a false dilemma. I’m guessing you’re a fan of C.S. Lewis or one of the other apologists who borrow his style? Either the founders of the country were correct, or they were imbeciles?
      Wrong. They didn’t have our knowledge in the sciences, so they formed their views based upon the information they had, at the time. We know better now. For one thing, our estimate for the age of the earth is based upon geology and radioactivity. They didn’t even know that radioactivity was a thing, 240 years ago.

      4. When one side of a debate is so fractally wrong that they don’t have anything to add to the discussion while grownups are talking, then there can’t be much of a debate.
      I know why otherwise intelligent people find Young-Earth Creationism to be viable. It has to do with dogma, indoctrination, and a screwed up approach to epistemology. Most Young-Earthers have never even exposed themselves to the scientific literature on the subject.
      I’ve read a lot of Ken Ham’s material. He’s generally dishonest and attacks a straw-man of evolutionary theory. He’s not particularly convincing. Have you done what you’re suggesting and read things from the opposing perspective? Have you read any of Dawkin’s or Jerry Coyne’s books?

      I don’t suppose you’re going to return the favor and listen to our responses?

      • Carole says

        Thank you for your thoughts, Lord Narf. Definitely listening to the responses, of which yours I’ve found one of the more thoughtful. You may easily find these things yourself, but here are a few things to consider:

        1. Website list of notable creation scientists: http://www.creationists.org/outstanding-creation-scientists.html. Not exhaustive, but a very good start. Examples of non-religious scientists who disagree with evolution: David Kitts in paleontology; 1/4/09 issue of New Scientist, and the book “Icons of Evolution” are three I immediate examples; you may find more. “Core facts” are objectively verifiable, and again, both theories start from an un-observable point from which they interpret facts since.

        2. Thank you for standing for parents’ rights on both sides; that really shows character. (My children are doing great! One just graduated HS with most of a college associates degree.) Will you let me know how not believing evolution will put them in the Bronze Age and disadvantage them in science? I was surprised to find that creationist theory has no impact, for example, on how someone would practice medicine – except maybe he would have greater value for life and dignity.

        3. You’re right. Some founders were deists. My point was that many great men such as Andrew Jackson, Isaac Newton, and Leonardo da Vinci believed in God and creation, as do many great men today, and we would be wrong to dismiss them as mentally insufficient. Remember in the 1400s the best minds in the world knew the earth was flat and those who disagreed were scorned. The fact that information is newest doesn’t make it most true.

        4. Many assumptions here. I actually used to subscribe to evolutionary theory, and was ready to throw out my religious roots as false while studying evolution/atheist philosophy in college. I was surprised when my research showed creationism the best fit for the facts. I could be wrong, but certainly not dishonest. Is it possible that the bias shown by the insults above may keep you from proper consideration?

        Thank you again for the listen and debate.

        • Lord Narf says

          1. Website list of notable creation scientists: http://www.creationists.org/outstanding-creation-scientists.html. Not exhaustive, but a very good start.

          I know of a few of those, like Dr. Robert Gentry. His work on polonium halos, which is what he’s probably known for in creationist circles, is deeply flawed and rejected by pretty much the entire scientific establishment. He’s not as much of a shining example of scientific achievement as you might think.

          I’m also noticing that almost all of those on the list don’t have doctorates in an applicable field. There are plenty of Ph.D.’s who are creationists, but if their degree isn’t in a field that has anything to do with the subject, they’re no more of an authority on the subject than I am.

          I want to know more about Dr. Ian Macreadie. What’s his religious background? Is he a fundamentalist Christian? I bet he is. I’m not even finding a Wikipedia page on the guy. What has he done?
          Like I said in my initial response, name one scientist who isn’t a fundamentalist religionist of some sort. We have a handful wandering around, like some guy from the Moonie Church named Jonathan Wells, who got a doctorate in molecular biology with the specific intention of using it to destroy biological evolutionary theory. When you have someone going that far into zealotry, I’m sure he’s capable of all sorts of insane stuff.

          Why isn’t Jonathan Wells on that list? They missed a very important one.

          As I said elsewhere in this comment section, you should look into Project Steve. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, the Discovery Institute’s own list of scientists who question “Darwinism” is fraudulent. Half of the scientists on the list have requested to be removed, and the Discovery Institute refuses to comply.
          Throwing around lists of scientists is a crap proposition for creationists to engage in, and it will get you nowhere. We know the facts about what the scientific establishment feel about creationism, and it’s not good for creationism.

          2. Thank you for standing for parents’ rights on both sides; that really shows character. (My children are doing great! One just graduated HS with most of a college associates degree.) Will you let me know how not believing evolution will put them in the Bronze Age and disadvantage them in science?

          I recognize your legal right to do so, yes. I also recognize the retarding effect of religion and anti-scientific worldviews, and I work to oppose them.

          It’s perfectly possible for a person to get along fine within a society, with any number of crazy views. A society with a large percentage of those people will do less well than other societies, though.

          America is suffering from the effects of our poor educational system, and this sort of nonsense isn’t helping. Give it another few decades and we may not have anything approaching the position amongst nations that we enjoyed in our parents’ and grandparents’ time.

          I was surprised to find that creationist theory has no impact, for example, on how someone would practice medicine – except maybe he would have greater value for life and dignity.

          Actually, the numbers don’t support you in that last assertion. More atheistic countries score much better on the basics of social wellness, compared to the more religious ones. The Scandanavian countries are kicking our asses, in that respect.

          Practicing medicine … say, being a nurse or a surgeon … doesn’t require much in the way of an understanding of biology. Those fields are kind of like being a mechanic of biological systems. Being a good research biologist while rejecting the core foundation of modern biology is a little more difficult.

          3. You’re right. Some founders were deists. My point was that many great men such as Andrew Jackson, Isaac Newton, and Leonardo da Vinci believed in God and creation, as do many great men today, and we would be wrong to dismiss them as mentally insufficient.

          Funny you would mention Isaac Newton. The guy did brilliant work in mathematics and physics, but he was a complete nut, in other areas. He was obsessed with alchemy, which was a major step backwards, for his time period.
          He also happened to be religious, but I can overlook obvious flaws like that, in favor of his scientific accomplishments.

          Andrew Jackson? Really? Andrew Jackson?
          Why would I care about the evolutionary views of a country lawyer, general, and president who died decades before On the Origin of Species was published?

          I never said that people who believe in creationism are mentally deficient (I believe is the word you meant).
          They’re wrong. They might have a perfectly good excuse, such as being born before a workable theory was developed or being brainwashed into fundamentalist religion from birth, as fundies tend to do to their children. That doesn’t change the fact that they’re wrong, though.

          Remember in the 1400s the best minds in the world knew the earth was flat and those who disagreed were scorned. The fact that information is newest doesn’t make it most true.

          Actually, that’s one of the many lies of history. Almost all educated people recognized that the world was round. Hell, the ancient Greeks knew that the world was round, more than 2,000 years ago.

          What you’re thinking of is Christopher Columbus and the fact that he couldn’t find someone to finance his voyage, because no one believed he could sail to India, the long way around. The reason they thought he was crazy is because he thought the world was much smaller than they knew it was.

          Turns out Christopher Columbus was dead wrong, and the nobility of the time were quite correct not to finance him. If he hadn’t happened to run into the Americas, he would have been just another massive failure of early seafaring, and they never would have seen him again, in Europe.

          4. Many assumptions here. I actually used to subscribe to evolutionary theory, and was ready to throw out my religious roots as false while studying evolution/atheist philosophy in college. I was surprised when my research showed creationism the best fit for the facts. I could be wrong, but certainly not dishonest. Is it possible that the bias shown by the insults above may keep you from proper consideration?

          Then you need to do a bit more research into evolutionary biology. Where did you do this research that showed that creationism fits the facts? I’ve read a huge amount on the subject, and most of the creationist literature doesn’t do anything to present its own case, merely attacks evolutionary theory … quite dishonestly, at that.

          I’ve seen a lot of Ken Ham’s work. As someone else on here labeled him, he’s a dishonest demagog. Either he’s willfully ignorant of most of the evidence for biological evolution, geology, and cosmology, or he’s a lying piece of crap.

          I read a lot of apologetics, because I’m a masochist that way. I even enjoy watching videos about people reading apologetics. It you have a good bit of time to spend watching or listening to YouTube videos, I’d recommend a few playlists:

          An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60-eK5sfwk&list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70
          An Atheist Reads Reasonable Faith:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nll-g8ll9QY&list=PL3E7E9155B5404B79
          An Atheist Reads I don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L632XYWgJs&list=PL0-LSnSBNIncKfFDrz7TrKmtAAUjC7rkZ

          He’s quite funny to listen to, as background listening, while you’re doing other mindless activities. Each chapter is between 25 and 50 minutes, usually, so each book takes 6 or 7 hours for him to go through.

          That might help give you a bit more perspective on the atheist worldview. It’s easier to get through stuff if it’s entertaining. I dunno, you might find him annoying, for all I know, but I’m kept quite entertained by it.

          • Lord Narf says

            *whine*

            Getting caught in moderation is a pain in the ass. I think all of the links did it. You should have a response by the morning, though, once Aron or Lilandra pushes it through moderation.

        • says

          I was surprised when my research showed creationism the best fit for the facts.

          I’d love to hear this explained.

          And, I’m sure that your research analysis didn’t include any Arguments from Ignorance, Arguments from Analogy, Arguments from Incredulity, False Equivalences or False Dichotomies, etc?

        • says

          I’m currently working on reviewing a book “What Darwin Didn’t Know” (Geoffrey Simmons, 2004), who is a medical doctor, and has supposedly spent 45 years studying evolution.

          … and yet he still uses the “why is evolution still a theory?” argument. Every point he tried to make in the first chapter was painfully incorrect.

          That’s why I don’t care about the people who claim to be authorities. I care about the evidence and applied epistemological framework.

          • Lord Narf says

            Heh, holy crap. How could someone …

            Wait, Geoffrey Simmons is the guy that PZ Myers spanked embarrassingly, on that Christian radio-station debate. I’m not surprised that he’s that ignorant and dishonest, after hearing that debate.

          • says

            I’ll have to look that up. Given what I’ve read in the book, it doesn’t sound like it’d be hard to “spank” him.

            There’s so much about rudimentary evolutionary concepts that he just didn’t have a clue about. It’s pretty much the embodiment of every cliche creationist argument you’ve probably refuted a thousand times.

          • Lord Narf says

            That’s one of the ones I linked, yeah. For some reason, my comment about it is still sitting in moderation, right above yours.

    • theignored says

      Reply to “carol”:

      Point 1. Pretty much all those “scientists” are theists like the members of the DI, CMI, AIG, ICR, etc. where they all have some derivative of a “statement of faith” that they have to adhere to before they can even join. (see point 2). Real science can’t straight-jacket itself like that. Scientists have to be open to evidence. Your side is not.

      As for the old canard of “Both evolution and creationism start with a point which cannot be observed with the scientific process,” I can only point out
      i — what I just said above: Creationists start with the conclusion and disregard any evidence that goes against it.
      ii — Evolution has been tested over and over again and it has passed. No theory in actual science is shielded as creationist “theory” is, among it’s adherents.

      Point 2: The AIG’s statement of faith were they have to swear that: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. shows that those people have no interest in academic or religious freedom. As for “parental/religious freedom are what make it unfair to impose your view on someone else’s children.”??

      Ham and AIG are constantly trying to do that to children every chance they get. Just read the man’s facebook page.

      Point 3
      Most of those people were around before Darwin came up with “the origin of species”. Your point?

      Point 4
      If people are truly in error, I posit the best remedy is to offer help/instruction instead of hostility, and compare facts instead of hurling insults. Perhaps you could arrange a meeting with Mr. Ham to exchange ideas if you’re really interested in finding out *why* intelligent people (honest!) find creation and young earth a viable option.
      All well and good to ask for civility, not so good when your side is the one that accuses it’s opponents of “suppressing the truth in unrigheousness” or “loving their sin” or outright “going after your kids” to “take them to hell” and shit like that, is it?

      Your side’s constant attacks on the characters of people like Dawkins, Myers, etc. are proof that you people in truth have no interest in actual civilities.

      As for trying to meet Ham to discuss things? I’d like to, but Ham censors out comments when left in written form on his blogs and facebook pages. Why in hell should I expect that a guy like that would care about honest debate?

    • JimDiver says

      “1. Though popular, evolution is not undisputed – plenty of non-religious scientists question evolution and have found it flawed. ”

      Bullshit. That what the creationists want you to think, but the number of scientists who are actually qualified to offer a dissenting opinion about evolution and that actually DO dissent to evolution is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. I know of exactly *one* and she is a fraud on Ham’s staff.

      “2. The above point and parental/religious freedom are what make it unfair to impose your view on someone else’s children.”

      You don’t have the right to undermine your child’s education. Period. Teaching creationism is doing exactly that. Any child that is taught creationism as being factually correct will need years of remedial education should they go into the life sciences.

      “3. Most scientific pioneers and great minds which formed our country, (not to mention many brilliant scientists today), were “indoctrinated with young earth creationism” or embraced it at a later age.”

      Bullshit. Absolute bullshit.

      “4. Our country has many things on which people are divided, and this isn’t good for our culture. Isn’t it important to respectfully disagree with one another, respectfully exchanging facts and humbly considering the possibility that we may have missed something?”

      We can agree to disagree about opinions, but not on factual claims. The facts are these:

      * All species, including man, descended from a common ancestor. If you don’t like that or find it offensive, then tough shit. It’s a fact. Pretending its not a fact just makes you look ignorant.

      * The earth is billions of years old. Period. If you believe the it’s less than 1,000,000 years old you are delusional or an idiot. If your religion can’t stand against that fact, then your religion has more serious problems than that.

      * There was no global flood. Never. It didn’t happen. Period. If your religion says otherwise and that causes a problem for you, tough shit. Get over it. You don’t have the right to lie to your kid and pretend there was a global flood.

      • Lord Narf says

        Don’t hold back, Jim. Tell us what you really think. :D

        It’s interesting to be the more calm voice in the discussion, for a change. I must need some coffee or something to get me back to form.

    • coragyps says

      Carole – Mr Ham is not the slightest bit interested in discussion. He is a preacher and a demogogue, not an educator, or scientist, or anything but a moneygrubber. I have followed his career for over a decade now. He lies, and he knows he’s lying.
      And no, there is no argument among rational minimally educated folks that humans descended from the same ancestors as the rest of Mammalia. Or that it took a large multiple of 6000 years to do so. It ain’t opinion, but fact.

  11. Jeff Gorrin says

    I have news for you Mr Ra. Evolution is the outdated pseudoscience and I can prove it using Darwin’s own words:
    Theory of Evolution Destroyed by Modern Science:
    Bacteria have a flagellum (tail) that spins at 100,000 RPM’s powered by a microscopic electric motor. It is impossible for an electric motor to gradually evolve because the motor has about 40 parts and it will not work if one of them is missing. Amazingly, the bacteria also reproduces itself. Atheists believe that this created itself by accident!!! ABSURD!!!
    The theory of evolution is based on the book “Origin Of Species” by Charles Darwin. It is a 19th century fairytale that has been thoroughly destroyed by modern science.
    For a little historical perspective do a search for Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis. He was a doctor who was in a mental hospital when Darwin was writing his fairytale. Semmelweis was mocked and ridiculed when he told doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies. This happened even after he proved that washing hands reduced the mortality rate of new mothers over 90%. This eventually caused him to have a nervous breakdown.
    Microscopes were not powerful enough at the time to see germs (or what a living cell was made of), so most doctors refused to believe that what they couldn’t see could cause disease.
    Charles Darwin actually predicted this in his book “Origin Of Species”. In Chapter 6 (titled: Difficulties of the Theory) he wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.
    Hundreds of modern scientists agree and have signed the petition on this website. This is not a religious website, so many of the signers are agnostics. The list continues to grow. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

    • Monocle Smile says

      Sorry, blatant lies aren’t very convincing.

      Someone should tell Salmonella about its flagellum, as its version only has like 20 parts and functions fine.

      What the shit does Semmelweis have to do with anything?

      Darwin laid down the foundation for natural selection, but he was wrong about an awful lot, and no modern biologist will dispute this. So what?

      That “list” is farcical at this point. It words itself such that any scientist could potentially agree with it, but it’s held up as some sort of refutation of evolution. This is a lie. In addition, DonExodus on YouTube actually emailed a bunch of the scientists on that list, and approximately half of them had requested they be taken off. the Discovery Institute did not acquiesce. It’s another example in a very, very long rap sheet of creationist dishonesty.

      Do you cretins EVER come up with new arguments? Everything you posted are PRATTs.

      • Lord Narf says

        Someone should introduce him to Project Steve.

        The additional bit about half of the scientists on the Discovery Institute’s list is beautiful. Stay classy, guys.

      • theignored says

        Here is the video where DonExodus tracked down the people on the DI’s list. Many are not even scientists.

        • Lord Narf says

          Is that the same list that has people like park rangers and dentists on it?

    • JimDiver says

      OH please.

      Your “quote” of Darwin is so fucking dishonest it’s shocking.

      Read the WHOLE paragraph. FFS, read the next fucking sentence! “But I can find out no such case.”

      Get a clue Sonny. Your creationism myth is dead. Deceased. Pushing up daisies. Passed on. Worm food. Croaked. Tits up. Flat lined. Taking dirt nap. Extinct. Kicked the bucket. Checked out. Bit the big one. Bought the farm, Sex feet under. Sleeping with the fishes, see. Toast. Terminated. Decommissioned. Pegged out. Demised. Departed. Defunct. Popped. Given up the ghost. Assumed room temperature. FINISHED.

      Get it?? Creationism is DEAD!! If you disagree, you are either an idiot, a liar, misinformed, or selling something.

    • Lord Narf says

      The bacterial flagellum is well understood, and we know its evolutionary roots. Monocle’s example of salmonella’s version of the motor also demonstrates how stupid Michael Behe’s argument is.

      Watch the coverage of the Dover ID trial. The creationists (that’s what they are; ID is a bullshit smokescreen) were embarrassed on both scientific and legal grounds. Behe demonstrated, many times, that he isn’t even vaguely aware of studies done decades ago, which present solid models of development which he claims don’t exist, with his Irreducible Complexity claim.

      His very definition of Irreducible Complexity is dishonest and rules out the actual evolutionary path that many biological mechanisms develop through. Behe claims that if a system can’t serve the same function with a few parts removed, then it’s irreducibly complex. He completely disregards the fact that pieces of a system can perform different functions, with a few pieces removed, which is what actually happens.

      And come on. Misquoting Darwin is old hat, and it wouldn’t even matter if Darwin did actually say one of the phrases that you guys stick in his mouth. We’ve moved on a hell of a long way from Darwin’s initial research. Science isn’t an authoritarian process, so attacking Darwin’s character does nothing to disprove the research he did.

      You could have quoted the eye passage, which dishonest creationists usually use:

      “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

      They leave out the rest of the paragraph:

      “When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [“the voice of the people = the voice of God “], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

      The quote you used is similarly dishonest.

    • says

      Darwin is mostly irrelevant to the modern theory, in the same sense that the Wright Brothers are irrelevant to to modern aerodynamic engineering. They’re famous for having the first sustained flight, but the vast bulk of aerodynamic knowledge has been researched and investigated by scientists since then.

      Even if it were shown that Darwin completely made everything up, it wouldn’t matter. It would simply mean that he managed to be correct, despite pulling it out of his ass.

      It’d be like saying that, if it was shown that the Wright Flyer event was a complete hoax, that all modern day airplanes would suddenly drop out of the sky.

      • Lord Narf says

        Yup, people who submit to an authoritarian system often can’t comprehend how anything can be true, without an authority declaring it true. The revealed truth guy, further up the page, declared pretty much that exactly.

    • redskyonmars says

      The Dissent from Darwin signature list (scientists who don’t agree with evolution) looks to be about 800 names (my estimate). NCSE’s Steve Project (scientists named “Steve”, and variations like “Stephanie”, who agree with evolution) is currently at 1272.

      Please stop trying to pass off a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of scientists disagreeing as some kind of upheaval. It is dishonest. Any guesses on how many scientists believe in UFOs, ghosts or faeries?

      http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

      • Lord Narf says

        Heh, yeah. I just mentioned Project Steve on here, elsewhere in the comments. The fact that many of the scientists have asked to be removed from the Discovery Institute’s list and the Discovery Institute’s refusal to comply makes their list even more of a demonstration of their dishonesty.

  12. Aliasalpha says

    If humans didn’t descend from monkeys then why would my shirt fit a monkey, huh?

    Checkmate Ham!

    Well its about as sophisticated as his usual “arguments”…

  13. says

    Oh dear, the foul language used in this discussion once again highlights the utter depravity that the rejection of God entails. Man without Christ is nothing but an unclean thing which is why we all need the only Saviour (John 14:6)!

    • theignored says

      Nadia:

      Have you just stumbled upon a new logical fallacy here? Ad-profanitium?
      If a person uses bad language, it’s proof that they need god, and therefor god exists?

      How stupid.

    • Monocle Smile says

      Hah. The appeal to civility. The last piece of driftwood clung to by those who are surely sinking.

      I’m unsure how “foul language” is somehow worse than threatening people with eternal torture.

      • says

        … or worse than that the only way to fix the staggering incompetence in creating a proper universe (problems that could be solved by a 5-year old in 5 minutes), was to create a son, with the sole intent of having him tortured to death.

  14. says

    There are one or 2 posters posting “foul language.” It isn’t a sign of how depraved people are. Studies have shown that there is a correlation between “foul language” and honesty.

    However, please tone it down, so that the topic isn’t derailed to “foul language” which isn’t used in the OP, and not the topic of this discussion. I know that people like Ham never cuss but politely lie about the universe to children, and none of our visitors will acknowledge that. But still.

    • No One says

      Not a problem… no “foul language” is needed to describe a lying, ignorant, charlatan. I can learn more about life prodding a pile of steaming bovine dung with a stick, than listening to any of Ken Hams pronouncements.

      • Lord Narf says

        Well, yeah. There’s a great deal to be learned about microbial life’s contribution to digestion, from examining animal dung.

  15. theignored says

    With thanks to The Sensuous Curmudgeon

    For anyone who falls for the lie that creationists just want to “teach the controversy” in schools, or that they want to let the kids hear “both sides” of the story:

    Some people suggest that children should be presented with a smorgasbord of evidence and encouraged to choose the position they find makes the best case, preferably blending mainstream science with whichever parts of faith can be made to fit. A number of those quoted in Christianity Today’s article are of this opinion.

    Truth is not multiple choice. Christian parents hoping to equip their children for spiritual and academic success do not need to use materials that promote evolution. They do not need textbooks offering a selection of “YEC, evolutionary creationism, intelligent design, and atheistic evolution,” as one BioLogos-backed project is developing. They need to choose textbooks that measure all truth according to the yardstick of God’s Word. Only then will they help their children build the biblical worldview they need to face the onslaughts of a world that is increasingly hostile to God.

    • Lord Narf says

      Dunno, I’m over 1,000 miles away, myself. Is it even in a venue that will be possible to hold a protest in front of? If you can’t get close enough to the meeting itself, a protest is kind of pointless. It’s not like this is a public function, to which anyone can show up and speak.

    • Dana says

      I don’t know why anyone would waste their time on this. You should probably just go take a Zanex and plant a tree or something.

      • says

        “If you are up for a protest of Ken Ham; he will be in Texas promoting Creationism to homeschoolers”
        That’s the title of the blog, why would my question imply I’m in need of a Zanex (really spelled Xanex )?

        • Dana says

          Actually, it’s “Xanax”, so we’re both bad spellers. Who the hell cares. Regardless, your question implies that you need a “Xanax” because it is a really stupid reason for a protest and for freaking out in borderline desperation about something that a group of people whose views and right to express those views CAN NOT and WILL NOT ever be thwarted in a free nation. You should be happy about that kind of liberty, but your not. And why? Simply because you see it as a threat to your personal beliefs. I just think “Protesting Ken Ham” is totally cornball and a big fat waste of time. There are so many other worthy causes out there.

          • James McMullen says

            Hmmm. . .this seems like a variation on that fallacy where if you can’t solve -every- problem, why should you bother trying to address -any- of them. What’s that called again? It’s not False Inclusivity or Moving the Goalposts, but it seems related.

          • Lord Narf says

            Who’s trying to silence Ken Ham? If anything, protesting him will potentially bring him more attention and get his word out to more people, which is kind of the point of protesting his events.

            He serves as a good focus, when people ask us why we’re opposing Christianity. Because this is the sort of shit they start doing, if they’re left completely alone.

            I second James’s comment. Yes, there are worse things, like massive human rights violations, but I could argue that this corruption of education is even more important, long-term, since it helps them create more little God-bots, if they can diminish the science education of the next generation.

            Even if it wasn’t genuinely important, though, they should protest it because they want to. Who says they aren’t also protesting things that you feel are important? Belittling someone for taking action isn’t a great way to help a cause.

          • Lord Narf says

            Getting there. I usually wait for a bit more persistence and refusal to accept an alternate viewpoint, before I actually throw out the label.

            Although, admittedly, the last comment about us trying to silence Ken Ham was a bit ridiculous. We’re not trying to suppress his views; we’re trying to shine light on them and let everyone see what the nut-jobs are trying to push into educational materials.

  16. says

    Hello mates, how is everything, and what you desire to say concerning this paragraph,
    in my view its genuinely remarkable in support of me.

  17. says

    Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but other than that, this is excellent blog. A great read. I’ll certainly be back.

  18. Izzy says

    As an agnostic home school mom, I must say I completely disagree with you. What these parents choose to teach their children is their decision, not yours or the government’s. These people are not in any way interfering with your right to send your children to the government indoctrination centers (a.k.a. public schools). They have simply decided to pull their children out of the system to teach them their own beliefs. Who are you to tell them what their beliefs should be? I, for one, am proud to live in a state that gives us the freedom to teach our children. There are far more important issues with our country’s educational system today than what a group of homeschoolers are teaching their children. Our educational system is failing, and I certainly don’t think you can blame Christian homeschoolers for that. Politicians and school administrators are doing a fine job of diminishing science education without their help.

    • says

      So you would have no problem then with parents who choose to teach their children that Columbus discovered Ohio in 1942? Or that Benjamin Franklin was the 1st king of America? Because we’re not talking about matters of opinion, we’re talking about matters of fact. We’re talking about facts being dismissed as frauds and falsehoods being asserted as fact. If you think parents have the right to teach their kids that the earth is hollow, and the moon landing was a hoax, and the government is run by extraterrestrial reptiles, fine. But creationism is actually worse than that. It is effectively the same as teaching your kids that the moon is made of green cheese and babies are brought by a stork. Young Earth creationism is just as factually wrong as both of those things.

  19. Tyranny Response Team says

    “Aron Ra” grew up Mormon (a huge lie and a cult) and now rails against religion and spews …..facts???
    I bet you love history and all its facts?
    To be quite honest you seem like a well meaning guy who is a communist and a control freak.
    Leave people alone for a try.
    When you die all your “knowledge” will cease.
    Not to long ago the “best” scientist in the word taught it was flat……….just like your respect for others.

  20. Tyranny Response Team says

    It is also hilarious that this sight is called ” free thought blog” as you do not tolerate other people having free thought at all, because they are so wrong and stupid.
    What a delusional fool.

  21. says

    Needed to compose you one little bit of word just to thank you the moment again on your unique secrets you’ve featured in this case. It is certainly shockingly open-handed with people like you to supply easily what exactly many of us might have made available for an e book to get some money on their own, mostly now that you could have done it in case you decided. These basics also acted as a great way to fully grasp other individuals have the identical keenness just as mine to understand much more in terms of this matter. I’m certain there are some more fun moments up front for people who view your blog post.