Do you have religious trauma syndrome? »« Why I am an atheist – Krio Gnosz

Ken Ham vs. Karl Giberson — should I care who wins?

Randall Stephens and Karl Giberson have written a book, The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age, which I haven’t read…but the NY Times has what appears to be a very balanced review. It’s premise is that evangelical Christianity has gone far astray, that within the evangelical stew there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism and contempt for academia…it is not surprising that Uncle Karl would make note of that, given the way his own views were steadily squeezed out of BioLogos, the site he co-founded, as more literal-minded views took hold.

The reviewer makes the point, though, that evangelicals’ attitudes towards academia are more complicated than the authors make out: that in particular, there is a tendency for many Christians to make an exceptionally big deal out of degrees. Kent Hovind went to a fake college to get his Ph.D.; Jonathan Wells stumbled through a real graduate program to get a degree; Marcus Ross got his Ph.D. in Cretaceous paleontology so he’d have more credibility in his claims that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. I don’t think that really sinks Stephens’ and Giberson’s point, though — evangelical Christians love the mantle of authority that a Ph.D. gives, but despise the substance of it. A person with a doctorate is only revered as long as they reinforce their superstitious prejudices.

But I don’t find all this serious discussion of the book that interesting. What made me laugh was that both the book and the review have infuriated Ken Ham, one of the chief targets of the argument against these evangelical know-nothings. Oh, Ken Ham is spitting mad.

Recently, two AiG staff members reviewed a book entitled The Anointed, co-authored by a writer who is well known for compromising the pagan religion of millions of years and evolution with God’s infallible Word.

If you follow the creationist movement at all, one of the clear messages is that atheists like me might be the imps of Satan, but we’re mostly irrelevant to their concerns. We offer no serious temptations to Real Christians™. No, the real dangers are those heretics who still promise all of the good rewards of Christianity — eternal life, paradise, good buddy Jesus, that sort of thing — yet do so without demanding the rigors and trials of pure Biblical literalism and fundamentalism. They offer an easy route out of their specific sect, and the fear is that they will substantially erode the faithful away.

So Answers in Genesis will take an occasional contemptuous swipe at godless heathens like me, or even Richard Dawkins, but the real enemies and the real targets of their hatred are people like Ken Miller and Karl Giberson. Compromisers. People who try to find a place for Jesus in evolution are especially wicked.

They also cannot comprehend atheism in the slightest, which is why we’ve been relegated to the status of “pagan religion”. Everything is a religion, from church service to lifestyle to beliefs, so everything is dealt with in a great grand act of projection.

Here’s how Answers in Genesis sees the world:

In our modern church today, there are many leaders who have compromised with the pagan religion of the day (i.e., evolution and millions of years—indeed, this really is today’s pagan religion to explain life without God). Sadly, many Christian leaders have been teaching generations in the church to accept this secular worldview and re-write God’s Word (particularly in Genesis) to fit with it.

Yes, as harsh as it might sound, today there are shepherds in the church who are also “wolves”—they have infiltrated the church with their destructive teaching. Now, I am not saying these wolves are not Christians—I suppose the term can fit Christians as well as non-Christians.

One such example is seen clearly in the writings of Dr. Karl Giberson. Until recently, he was a physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College in Massachusetts—probably leading many students astray about the Bible’s authority with his compromised teaching.

Gosh, I’m a little bit jealous — I wish Ken Ham saw me as just as dangerous as Karl Giberson. All I’d have to do is convert to liberal Christianity and start attending church regularly and…ack. No. Not going to happen, too high a price to pay.

Ken Ham and Georgia Purdom also ripped through the book and found errors. These are real errors and represent genuine problems in the scholarship behind Stephens’ and Giberson’s book (if Bill O’Reilly can get slammed for errors in details, then Karl Giberson should, too), but it’s amazing how petty the problems are.

This is a book that attempts to be a scholarly look at “unscholarly” Christian leaders of prominence in America. It is, after all, published by the prestigious Harvard Press. Yet we were surprised to find several mistakes in the introduction and first chapter alone—plus a generally snide tone that is unbecoming of a scholarly work. For example, the authors gave the wrong month for our Creation Museum’s opening (p. 11); they mistakenly claimed that Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, is a young-earth creationist (p. 19); the year given for the first “Back to Genesis” seminar is incorrect (p. 41); and the name of our daily radio program is incorrect (p. 11).

The biggest mistake there is the attribution of young earth creationism to Dobson, although to be fair, Dobson has been a murky wad of BS on the issue, and seems to me to be willing to take whatever objection to science is currently expedient and babble ignorantly about it. He does promote Hugh Ross, the old earth creationist, which indicates that if nothing else he lacks the ideological purity expected by AiG.

And the bottom line is that Ham cannot refute the major thrust of the Stephens/Giberson argument: the evangelical Christian attitude towards science is epitomized by their lionization of unlettered wacky yahoos like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and Eric Hovind, and that they’re willing to learn from people with Ph.D.s, like Philip Johnson for instance, only as far as they give them rationalizations for their dogma. This is what the NY Times says about that central issue, and Ham can’t dispute it.

Many evangelicals, Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson say, get their information on dinosaurs and fossils from Ken Ham, an Australian with a bachelor’s degree from the Queensland Institute of Technology. Ham believes human reason should confirm the Bible rather than reinterpret it, and teaches that God created the world a few thousand years ago. His ministry, “Answers in Genesis,” includes a radio program broadcast over more than 1,000 stations, a magazine with a circulation of 70,000 and the ­multimillion-dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky. While other evangelicals — for example Francis Collins, the born-again Christian who runs the National Institutes of Health — offer more nuanced perspectives on science’s relationship to the Bible, Ham commands a far larger audience.

It’s entirely true that Answers in Genesis is the most popular creationist organization in the US (he won’t argue with that), and it’s also entirely true that he’s an ignoramus with minimal education in biology. Not mentioned is that, without concern for what letters he has or doesn’t have after his name, he gets all the science wrong, misrepresents the evidence, and willingly confesses that he’s irredeemably shackled to a book of dogma. Yet his is the voice evangelical Christians choose to listen to. And if they don’t like him, they turn to Eric Hovind, another moron for Jesus, or his jailbird daddy, Kent Hovind.

To be fair, they’re stuck in a hard place. I disagree that Collins is more nuanced — he’s just as loony on Christianity as Ken Ham — but that’s the Christian problem. Ultimately, all of the paladins of faith are forced to defend Christianity, which is antique ooga-booga bullshit on toast. When all of your choices are eye-buggingly batty, you can’t use reason to decide among them any more.

Comments

  1. raven says

    Guest columnist: What evangelical influence?

    HECTOR AVALOS is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University. by by hector avalos

    Look no further than the Family Leader’s inability to reach a consensus on endorsing a single presidential candidate in order to understand the dramatic evolution of American evangelicalism in the last decade.

    Self-described evangelicals are rapidly fragmenting and shifting toward more liberal positions. The leaders of the Family Leader, Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley, who are widely described as “influential,” are not even influential enough to persuade the rest of their own board members to endorse Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania.

    For the most part, the media has overlooked the fragmentation and generational shifts among evangelicals, who are often also lumped with “fundamentalists,” “social conservatives,” and “born-again” Christians.

    Such fragmentation is not news to George Barna, the founder of the Barna Group, which tracks the religious beliefs of Americans. Years ago, he began noticing the widening generational gap between older self-described evangelicals and what are called the “Born-again Busters,” who range in age from 23 to 41.

    For example, “Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity,” a book by David Kinnaman and published by the Barna Group in 2007, reports that 59 percent of “Born-again Busters” believe it is morally continues

    Oddly enough, according to Hector Avalos, the Evangelicals seem to be splitting into factions. Based on age, education, and geography.

    It’s possible that being stupid, uneducated, and poor just isn’t that appealing for all of them.

    Xianity has one good feature. When they get tired of hating everyone else, they hate each other. The religion has always been hopelessly split and contantly fragmenting.

  2. says

    Another reason they might like to call science a “pagan religion” is that they can thereby obscure the fact that pagan creation myths, or the eternal forms of an Aristotle, are actual alternatives to teaching their myths. Teach the controversy: Indeed, why is Genesis any better than Ovid’s Metamorphases, particularly when the latter is a much more interesting collection of tales.

    Naturally they can’t admit the obvious fact that the core of evolutionary mechanisms that matter came solely through science. That would imply that creationism does not come from science, and the truth is what most evangelicals can’t abide.

    Glen Davidson

  3. raven says

    No, the real dangers are those heretics who still promise all of the good rewards of Christianity — eternal life, paradise, good buddy Jesus, that sort of thing — yet do so without demanding the rigors and trials of pure Biblical literalism and fundamentalism.

    Those heretical science accepting xians are actually the majority worldwide.

    Fundie-ism is mostly an American perversion based in the south central USA.

  4. peterh says

    “For the most part, the media [have] overlooked the fragmentation and generational shifts among evangelicals, who are often also lumped with “fundamentalists,” “social conservatives,” and “born-again” Christians.”

    They all occupy the same nuthouse. Simple enough for me, and, I submit, clear enough for anyone except residents of that nuthouse.

    And what, might you suppose, is a “generational shift”? What happened to Inerrant™?

  5. kantalope says

    I dunno the brand o religion coming out of Africa seems pretty close to the wackaloon stuff out of the US…with witches.

    damn you Harry Potter….

  6. Brother Yam says

    They all occupy the same nuthouse. Simple enough for me, and, I submit, clear enough for anyone except residents of that nuthouse.

    True dat. One room for the Napoleons, one for Jeebuses, one for the one that think that they can fly.

  7. Thursday's Child says

    Can we look on the YEC vs OEC deabte, say Ken Ham vs Hugh Ross, as a science experiment?

    Ken Ham prays to his god, then reads Genesis, and claims a clear god-given understanding of the book and science that equals YEC. Hugh Ross is the peer review. He prays just as hard as Ham, to the same god, reads Genesis and the same science, but gets OEC.

    I’m not a scientist of any sort, but I understand that this is the point where serious scientists go back to the drawing board with their singular, unconfirmed results. At no point in the scientific method is there room for stubborn claims of revelation. Can’t the creationists see this?

  8. Sastra says

    Some evangelicals are creationists and some are not: to those inside the system this is a deep, serious divide, one they expect the general public — and atheists — to acknowledge and respect. And so we do. Yes, good for the evolutionary evangelicals.

    But we atheists also see that deep, serious divide between top-down religious ways of viewing the world and the bottom-up scientific approach. Philosophically speaking, this is a more significant difference. Those evangelicals — and Christians — who accept the discoveries of modern science and appreciate the scientific methods must draw a line where science stops and mystical revelation begins. This line can be anywhere. There are no rules other than the comfortable heuristic that, wherever the line is, it should make no sense to atheists.

    I suspect Ham and his creationist cohorts think that “worshiping” Nature and appreciating Nature are the same thing. Thus, evolution is pagan.

  9. Denephew Ogvorbis, OM says

    I am often amused by the evangelical use of the word, “pagan.” I was taught that pagan meant someone who (a) practiced a polytheistic religion and is either unaware of Christianity or pre-dates Christianity. I think the word they want is “heathen” — one who is aware of Christianity but persists in not becoming a Christian.

    Of course, words morph all the time and, checking the ffft of all knowledge, I see that pagan and heathen are used interchangeably.

    Never mind.

  10. stonyground says

    If we are all Pagans now, can we have our stolen midwinter festival back please?

  11. Marcus Hill says

    Are you saying that a doctorate doesn’t give you the power to know everything? Phew, I thought it just hadn’t worked for me.

  12. raven says

    Of course, words morph all the time and, checking the ffft of all knowledge, I see that pagan and heathen are used interchangeably.

    Indeed, words do morph a lot.

    I don’t have a problem being called a Pagan. I would find being called a xian rather insulting.

  13. shouldbeworking says

    Ok, then that makes me a heathen, apostate infidel. That’s quite a mourhful, how about if I refer to myself as undeluded?

  14. raven says

    Ok, then that makes me a heathen, apostate infidel. That’s quite a mourhful, how about if I refer to myself as undeluded?

    I sometimes refer to nonfundies as normal people. And mean exactly that.

  15. Sandiseattle says

    i’m surprised its even a question. I mean wow i’m gone for a week and same shit different day. Not that I care either.

  16. says

    Christianity, which is antique ooga-booga bullshit on toast

    Another lovely line designed to make us choke to death on our food or drink from unsuppressable laughter, eh? It especially encapsulates the more conservative versions of Christianity with their “Devil’s gonna getcha!”, Pascal’s Wagery attitude.

  17. madscientist says

    “… within the evangelical stew there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism and contempt for academia.”

    That’s always been the case in the USA at least since G.McReady-Price.

  18. Chuck says

    I disagree that Collins is more nuanced — he’s just as loony on Christianity as Ken Ham

    Well, it’s possible to be more nuanced in one’s Christianity and exactly as loony as Ken Ham, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I think a chimpanzee could be more nuanced in its Christianity than Ken Ham.

  19. Irene Delse says

    Recently, two AiG staff members reviewed a book entitled The Anointed, co-authored by a writer who is well known for compromising the pagan religion of millions of years and evolution with God’s infallible Word.

    Could the AiG authors be actually not using “pagan” as a common purpose insult, but trying to relate today’s science with the Ancients’ atomist philosophy? Hmm… Nah, let’s not give ‘em too much credit.

    …plus a generally snide tone that is unbecoming of a scholarly work.

    Heh. Ken Ham must not read scholarly works (genuine ones, I mean) that often if he thinks a snide tone is either rare, or frowned-upon among academics.

  20. EvoMonkey says

    “Evangelical stew”? How do you prepare that? Do you have a recipe? I am presuming it contains Bibles, but do you use the whole evangelical or just part? Can you substitute a pentecostal if you’re out of evangelicals? That may make the stew too fiery.

    We have a Lifeway Christian store near here, I guess that’s a good place to get the main ingredient. Maybe they are having a post-Christnas closeout sale on evangelical Lutherans or Methodists. I guess the plump young ones are more tender than the scrawny bony old ones.

    I find the phrase “Christian store” rather funny. A long while ago, I actually asked a salesperson at one of these stores in an outlet mall that had a big “Buy one, get one free” sale, if I bought a Baptist could I get a Presbyterian free. Needless to say, she didn’t get the joke.

  21. Denephew Ogvorbis, OM says

    “Evangelical stew”? How do you prepare that? Do you have a recipe?

    Stew makes sense. After all, Catholicism has the fryers.

  22. Brownian says

    If we are all Pagans now, can we have our stolen midwinter festival back please? go back to eating missionaries?

    Pfathuma demands sacrifice.

  23. Brownian says

    …plus a generally snide tone that is unbecoming of a scholarly work.

    Ah, the No True Academic™ defence.

    I’m going to enjoy eating this one very much.

  24. EvoMonkey says

    …can we go back to eating missionaries?

    Again, do you have any good recipes? According to PZ, evangelicals make for good stew. Denephew Ogvorbis says Catholics are good for frying. I’m guessing mainline moderate Prostenats are too flavorless and not worth the trouble. What about Mormons they do a lot of missionary work, is there a preferred way to prepare them? Barbecuing maybe? Might be appropriate given their pioneer Western US past.

  25. Brownian says

    Again, do you have any good recipes?

    You eat to sate your appetite for flavour? What warrior are you?

    I chant:

    Wasp gaping. Where Ho! Wasp gaping it its gully.
    Wasp gaping. Wasp gaped there. I became a wasp gaping.
    Wasp angry with them. My anger, Wasp their muddy, my stomach muddy. His mind gets boiling, inside became muddy. Anger turns even to kin.

    My thinking turns; ware thoughts get angry for them.
    My mind becomes a whirlpool. Liver thoughts turning.
    My victim, bald. My victim, big woman. My victim, children.
    My man, bald one; his liver I take back. Strong thoughts his.
    His liver I roll it up. His leg I roll it up.
    His image I roll it up. His bones I roll it up.
    His liver gets thin. His liver broken.
    Thoughts become swinging to and fro.
    My leg sole, they bring back. My hand palm, fat.

    Ken Ham knows not for what he prays.

  26. Gregory Greenwood says

    Christianity, which is antique ooga-booga bullshit on toast.

    You really do have the most wonderful turn of phrase PZ. That describes christian sky fairy delusions to a tee.

  27. unclefrogy says

    I would have thought that the preferred means of cooking Christians would be slow roasting on a spit over an open fire at least that is one they seem to rail about, the flames of hell and all.
    I would be careful though as the old hypocritical ones may have a high fat content, watch closely and keep a good fire extinguisher handy. charred pig does not have a very good taste.

    uncle frogy

  28. 'Tis Himself, OM. says

    Ham must be quite annoyed that burning at the stake has gone out of fashion. Now all he can do to Giberson is call him names and call his writings “snide.”

  29. David Marjanović says

    Marcus Ross got his Ph.D. in Cretaceous paleontology so he’d have more credibility in his claims that the earth is less than ten thousand years old

    As I’ve said before (…hm… probably 4 years ago), I’ve read one of his papers. Published in none less than the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, it explicitly gives the evidence-supported ages of well over 65 million years and nowhere hints at YEC. I still think he’s lying to his parents and his employers at “Liberty” “University” when he claims to be a YEC.

    I am often amused by the evangelical use of the word, “pagan.” I was taught that pagan meant someone who (a) practiced a polytheistic religion and is either unaware of Christianity or pre-dates Christianity. I think the word they want is “heathen” — one who is aware of Christianity but persists in not becoming a Christian.

    That’s a really interesting way to try to create a difference between two synonyms. English is the only language that has two words for this in the first place (not counting “infidel”)…

  30. julietdefarge says

    This is why I can’t understand why evangelicals would ever vote for a Catholic. I guess they don’t know what the Catholic church’s stance on evolution and human decent from primates is- or else they figure they can make them Baptists at sword-point, once they have done away with all reproductive medicine.

  31. bcwebb says

    “Evangelical stew” recipe? But you can’t boil that monk, he’s a friar! baddadaboom. A very old recipe.

    The observation of more intense competition between similar organisms attempting to occupy the same evolutionary niche is of course consistent with the whole religion as virus meme. Intelligent design has a better chance of infecting the mind of a bible literalist than an atheist.

  32. says

    ‘People who try to find a place for Jesus in evolution are especially wicked.’

    So, trying to reconcile religion and science is seen as much worse than simply denying religion? How weird! I was sure evangelicals would be convinced to accept evolution if we just weren’t dicks about it.

  33. brennenchua says

    “So Answers in Genesis will take an occasional contemptuous swipe at godless heathens like me, or even Richard Dawkins, but the real enemies and the real targets of their hatred are people like Ken Miller and Karl Giberson. Compromisers. People who try to find a place for Jesus in evolution are especially wicked.”

    I think, this makes sense, if you follow the money…

  34. 'Tis Himself, OM. says

    I was sure evangelicals would be convinced to accept evolution if we just weren’t dicks about it.

    Another argument against accommodationism.

  35. Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism says

    Evomonkey

    What about Mormons they do a lot of missionary work, is there a preferred way to prepare them? Barbecuing maybe? Might be appropriate given their pioneer Western US past.

    I’d stay the hell away from the Mormons if I were you. Have you ever seen the way those dudes smile? I’m convinced that they are full of prions.

  36. Irene Delse says

    DM #35:

    I am often amused by the evangelical use of the word, “pagan.” I was taught that pagan meant someone who (a) practiced a polytheistic religion and is either unaware of Christianity or pre-dates Christianity. I think the word they want is “heathen” — one who is aware of Christianity but persists in not becoming a Christian.

    That’s a really interesting way to try to create a difference between two synonyms. English is the only language that has two words for this in the first place (not counting “infidel”)…

    Another relic of the dual source of modern English vocabulary. “Heathen” stems from a Germanic root, and “pagan” from the Latin “paganus”, meaning “rustic” or “country-dweller” (because in Europe, Christianism was for centuries the religion of the urban elite, while the peasantry kept their old traditions so long that it prompted the clergy to rededicate local shrines to make them into chapels, claim that this or that old legendary character was really a Christian saint, and so on).

  37. sockeyesalman says

    re: 9
    My understanding is that the term “pagan” in the narrow sense is a person or a religion that is neither Jewish, Christian, nor Islamic. These three religions historically recognize the “Books of Moses” (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). I think Islam at least in the past has acknowledged Jews and Christians as “people of the Book.” enuf said.

  38. KG says

    I’d stay the hell away from the Mormons if I were you. Have you ever seen the way those dudes smile? I’m convinced that they are full of prions. – Hurin

    Besides, getting the magic underwear off is a hell of a chore.

  39. alexmartin says

    Amazingly, most of you seem to be hip to AiG and other creationist sites of the type, which amazes me. I wonder at that. I see amongst you all the total and uniform dismissal of all that they at AiG claim and report.

    Curious, yet expected.
    But to the assertion that they get ALL the science wrong, as if there are no substantive questions of science raised and answered by those folks, well, I find that charge to be a stretch, personally.

    AiG, and particularly CREV.info take the ox by the horns and seem to do a pretty fair job of goring it. I am frequently entertained by them and just distant enough from the matter of origins to not be so rabidly inflamed by their many and insufferable anti-evolutionary blasphemies (read that as ‘objective’).

    But I can’t fault any of you; when asked exactly how can any original biological matter remain “fresh” in a dino bone after 65- or 100 million years or so, I’d probably shrivel up,as well.

    I guesse all I’d have left for them in the gas tank is mockery as well.

    Hilarious.

  40. alexmartin says

    Yawn indeed, Long-and-tediously psuedonymed-iste. Since that one instance you referenced, like a revelation, there have come several more. Not a rare occurrence, it turns out.

  41. says

    how can any original biological matter remain “fresh” in a dino bone after 65- or 100 million years

    Ah, another liar for Jesus. It wasn’t fresh at all. It was greatly degraded, fragmentary proteins of ambiguous origin trapped in a mineralized matrix that required acid extraction to remove them. Don’t act like this was chicken meat found on the bone.

  42. says

    Yawn indeed, Long-and-tediously psuedonymed-iste.

    what, didn’t anyone teach you how to c/p? or that things after a comma are usually not part of a pseudonym?

    there have come several more

    citation sorely needed, seeing as all the instances I’ve seen that came “after” were actually more like that cuttlefish chitin: much lying, nothing to support their case.

    Not a rare occurrence, it turns out.

    assuming this turns out to be true… what precisely do you imagine this to signify?

  43. 'Tis Himself, OM. says

    alexmartin #45

    Amazingly, most of you seem to be hip to AiG and other creationist sites of the type, which amazes me.

    Why should it amaze you? We get creationist know-nothings here all the time, trying to peddle a 2500 year old religious myth. Many of them use arguments stolen directly from AIG (stolen because usually no attribution is given). So we’ve become familiar with AIG’s lies.

    I wonder at that.

    Who cares what you wonder at?

    I see amongst you all the total and uniform dismissal of all that they at AiG claim and report.

    You’ve wandered into a science blog. We do reality here. AIG does lies to prop up a specific bronze-age creation myth.

    Curious, yet expected.

    Are you always this patronizing?

    AiG, and particularly CREV.info take the ox by the horns and seem to do a pretty fair job of goring it.

    Certain creationists say that if given a choice between the Bible and reality, they chose the Bible. AIG isn’t that honest. Instead, they lie about science (and religion), apparently because they think God will spank their bottoms forever if they don’t lie.

    I am frequently entertained by them and just distant enough from the matter of origins to not be so rabidly inflamed by their many and insufferable anti-evolutionary blasphemies (read that as ‘objective’).

    Somehow I doubt you’re “objective.” But go on, you’re not quite boring yet.

    But I can’t fault any of you; when asked exactly how can any original biological matter remain “fresh” in a dino bone after 65- or 100 million years or so, I’d probably shrivel up,as well.

    See Jadehawk’s post #46. None of us are shriveling.

    I guesse [sic] all I’d have left for them in the gas tank is mockery as well.

    Oh. Who cares what you’d have for them?

    Hilarious.

    Yawn.

  44. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    It’s simply that when I smell bulls*#t, I call it.

    Ah, an alleged skeptic who lies and bullshits for a group who believes in an imaginary deity. Doesn’t sound like someone without an agenda to me. As a chemist, I have no trouble with highly degraded biopolymer existing after that long a period of time. Due diligence was taken. Now, I am skeptical of any claims from a group who presupposes an imaginary deity and book of mythology/fiction being inerrant.

  45. Mr. Fire says

    But I can’t fault any of you; when asked exactly how can any original biological matter remain “fresh” in a dino bone after 65- or 100 million years or so, I’d probably shrivel up,as well.

    What’s wrong with your brain? Why do you then proceed not only to agree with jadehawk’s counterpoint, but provide a counterpoint of your own in the ensuing comments? Did you somehow think it would impress people to show that you are knowledegable of the facts that suggest you are full of shit?

    And all while providing no examples of this claim:

    But to the assertion that they get ALL the science wrong, as if there are no substantive questions of science raised and answered by those folks, well, I find that charge to be a stretch, personally.

    AiG, and particularly CREV.info take the ox by the horns and seem to do a pretty fair job of goring it.

    ?

  46. alexmartin says

    “Binary” or “dualistic” thinking, anyone?
    You are either rational (materialist) or a creationist(buffoon); I reject that characterization.

    You all claim to be “free thinkers”. Ahem. What that really means to you, in black and white, is RIGHT thinkers: science has firmly established this or that as ‘proven fact’, unquestionable, lest we send out the hordes upon thee.

    Pure mob thuggery.

    I tell you that I am impartial, detached, dispassionate, and apparently, your circuits begin to trip and blow. Well, that’s your Achilles heel, your blind spot. Best check yourself. Dogma makes one blind. There is not a single tenet in modern science that has not been challenged, often successfully in past and I know that in such case, the past IS prelude.

    I cast a cynical eye upon all received wisdom. Can you say the same? Don’t put me in a box because you made an investment in an enterprise you cannot allow to fail. I am not adverse (read “afraid”) of the idea of the Divine foot in the door; apparently, you all are. At a time when cosmologists are forced to own up to the fact of the ultimate origin of energy and matter http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328473.500-the-genesis-problem.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news , I won’t play the ignorant fool ducking under the bed covers to hide from the Boogeyman.

  47. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    Of course things get challenged in science. Challenging, testing, etc. is what science is all about. What there is no scientific proof of, nor need for, is any sort of supernatural being.

    If you are impartial then you should follow the actual facts. The fact is that there is no proof of any such supernatural being so far.

    And as a scientist I am well aware that any theory is subject to testing, and attempts to disprove it. But you only get to replace a working theory by another that is better than the one that is working.

    So no, I would not state that any theory is 100% true and could never be changed. However, any theory looking to modify or overturn a current theory (though modification is usually the way these days) it would have to explain everything the current theory does. Plus predict something the old theory doesn’t, in a way that could be tested. ‘Goddidit’ is not a valid theory by that measure.

  48. alexmartin says

    Ariaflame, Hail fellow well met.
    Did you follow the link?
    You are a person of science and of letters. Your issue and that of your peers, as I have made abundantly clear, is not with me.

    Garbage in, garbage out: you start wrong, you end wrong. That’s all I’m saying.

  49. says

    “Binary” or “dualistic” thinking, anyone?
    You are either rational (materialist) or a creationist(buffoon); I reject that characterization.

    No one has made that characterization on the whole. They have however done it of you because of the evidence you present of yourself.

  50. says

    You are a person of science and of letters. Your issue and that of your peers, as I have made abundantly clear, is not with me.

    A) Taunting it pathetic and childish when your target has the minimal perception to recognize it and the intelligence to know that any action one tries to elicit through such tactics is not one worth doing. Most of us have seen Back to the Future and have absorbed that aesop, butthead.

    B) Your last sentence is contextually confused.

  51. alexmartin says

    What?
    And who is “they”? the Borg Collective, the Hive Mind? Where is the button to turn it off?

  52. says

    @alexmartin

    From context they would be other people who have responded to you.

    This non-sequitor is just sad. How old are you? You’re either trolling, have contextual illiteracy, or are very young.

    Makes me wish I had my old nyme title “I SPEAK FOR THE HIVEMIND GROUPTHINK”

  53. KG says

    I tell you that I am impartial, detached, dispassionate, and apparently, your circuits begin to trip and blow. – alexmartin

    No, they don’t. We recognise self-deluding smuggards who claim to be über-sceptical readily, because while less common than ordinary creobots, they turn up here from time to time. You have, and are, nothing new, original, or clever.

  54. says

    OT: This seems to be a virulant offshoot of ‘truthyness’ or perhaps a side effect of it. Or maybe it’s from the idea of ‘open mindedness’ and that horsestuff. The idea that forming a consensus on something is equivalent to dogma or walking in goose step. That somehow it’s of value to promote or keep some voice around that will say “The Sky is Green” rather than have any community that simply has reached the conclusion that it is blue.

  55. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You all claim to be “free thinkers”.

    Funny how people who make this claim against us shows dogmatic thinking. My retort: “show me the evidence, preferably from the peer reviewed scientific literature.” And that is put up or shut up about your claims.

    science has firmly established this or that as ‘proven fact’, unquestionable

    Science is not absolutely (100%) right. 99.9999% is good enough for me. Now, science can only be refuted by more science. Inane and silly questions and philosophy won’t do it. Now, where is your papers from the peer reviewed scientific literature? Or you have nothing put your uninformed opinion.

    I am not adverse (read “afraid”) of the idea of the Divine foot in the door;

    Then you will need direct evidence for “divine” (your imaginary deity). You need to provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to an eternally burning bush that can be examined. Put up or shut up about it.

    Science always has a more parsimonious explanation than imaginary deities. Remove the deities and nothing changes.

    Now, either cite the scientitific literature with positive evidence for your claims, or shut the fuck up about them.

  56. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    Looked at the link. An opinion piece, basically going over the same old ‘if there’s a creation, then does that mean there is a creator’ schtick.

    Do I claim to know what happened to cause the big bang? No. We know what happened after a certain amount of time, (admittedly the time is measured in nanoseconds I think – cosmology is not my area professionally) but before that? No. But a ‘creator’ is not needed because if you postulate a creator then the question merely becomes ‘so who created them’? No further on, and with a needless level of complication, and no data to suggest this ‘creator’ existed.

    We do get particle creation for short periods of time without cause, so it is not inconceivable that the universe did so. Whether the physics we know applied at that point is also unknowable. I do not feel the need to make up fairy stories to fill in the gaps.

    One thing you are right about. Garbage in, Garbage out. Start off with false premises, like supernatural creatures to explain natural events, and you will not be able to predict very much based on those false premises.

    Oh, and I’m not a ‘fellow’.

  57. says

    I am not adverse (read “afraid”) of the idea of the Divine foot in the door;

    People need to realize that acting like Fox Mulder in real life makes you look like an idiot. Frankly, it did on the show too but lazy writing didn’t take into account how moronic Mulder was.

  58. alexmartin says

    My, my. Tsk tsk. How personal we have all become.
    What’s needed at this point would be copious tankards of ale, a fiery instigator, pitchforks, and a few flaming torches to light the way.

    And such an effusion of rage! I suppose where “reason” fails, a punch in the nose must suffice. Some of you represent your cause well…

    At any rate, Nerd of Redhead, blah, blah, I’ve made no “claims”, as such, to validate: I have forwarded a position, sans blandishments. Even so, I gave two citations with which to illustrate said position, as example. Nothing further. Since I’m now become (inexplicably) the focal point of this discussion, I reiterate that I have questions, not an agenda. Questions that the eminent Hawkings himself is wrestling with; but, whereas a certain encumbrance of logic seems to impishly dog his ear and rake his dreams at night (godditit?), I am not similarly apoplectic. I have no such avoidance issue. Let the evidence lead where it may, I say.

    Problem with that?
    So getting back to the article, Ham vs. Giberson, that’s internecine esoterica. The relevance is the underlying sub-strata, time, space, and matter and the issue of why, why, why. I am not so facile as to derisively conclude “I know the answer”.

    Thank you for your time.

  59. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    That wasn’t rage. You weren’t called a cupcake, nor offered a rotting porcupine. That was people pointing out that speculation without any evidence to back it up is worthless. As it, it’s not worth our time to bother with it.

    And given your tone trolling you got off fairly lightly. So far.

    So if you’re not going to make claims, what exactly is your point? That people don’t know exactly how the universe started? Big whoop. Not exactly news. What there isn’t is any evidence to suggest that it was by any creator being. Are you claiming there is? Or are you just handwaving and thinking yourself clever by trolling?

  60. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I reiterate that I have questions, not an agenda

    We’ve heard that one before. Common creobot tone trolling. Your questions do imply the claim that a deity exists. Either put up or shut the fuck up with evidence. And you failed to cite the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your claims. I do know that. You don’t understand the differnce between someone expressing an unscientific opinion, and real science. Learn the difference so you stop embarrassing yourself with idiocy.

    Let the evidence lead where it may, I say.

    Here’s the thing. Either you have evidence for a deity or you don’t. If you have evidence, present it. If you don’t, shut the fuck up about it. That is what people of honesty and integrity, like scientists in their professional work, do. You imply claims, but supply no evidence. That is the realm of liars and bullshitters. So, what is your choice? Are you a person of honesty and integrity, or a liar and bullshitter. Your next post will tacitly tell us.

  61. alexmartin says

    First, Ariaflame, I apologize, madam. I recognize that you are not a “fellow”.

    Second, You do not KNOW what happened a few nanoseconds after the (heretofore comically derided) “Big Bang”: you have various notions and hypothesis about inflation.

    Do you recognize the difference?
    Will you again speak ex cathedra on that matter?
    Don’t bamboozle.

    Third, you get “particle creation…without cause” in the same way that you get muffins instead of crescent rolls without flour.

    Who do you imagine you are talking to?

    Fourth, tone-/trolling? As if. I have come to the best of the best here at PZ Meyers’ vanity pet to get that good ol’ clarity and depth. Y’all school me, as I am a dissolute fool who is not satisfied that “it just” happened” and “just because”. I have an itch I cannot scratch. Y’all have your escape hatch, making promissory notes on future deposits to the bank of eternal regression to the doorway of Truth. I do not buy it. I say to you all, as was your challenge me, to “Put up or shut up”. Don’t give me Futurespeak, handwaiving, Futureware, bandwagoneering, the like. Feel me?

    Because, frankly, I Refuse To Believe.
    “Free Thinker”.

    Why do I bother? Because arrogance and hubris are so unbecoming and irksome.

  62. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Oh, and AM, science, due to the lack of evidence for deities, puts the null hypothesis as non-existence for all deities and other stupornatural phenomena. In order for science to truly consider a deity, you need to the type of evidence I mentioned above in order to show existence. Vague claims and sophist presuppositional philosophy doesn’t do anything toward that evidence.

  63. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    Why do I bother? Because arrogance and hubris are so unbecoming and irksome.
    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    It is far too late at night for me to address your concerns. Perhaps you should actually talk to some cosmologists that would be better able to address your questions. If that is, you are able to formulate a question.

    And no, I don’t ‘know’ what happened then. I don’t ‘know’ for example that the universe wasn’t created a nanosecond ago with everything including my memories in place, but it isn’t very likely. What there are are some good theories based on evidence. If you want to know what they are then read some astrophysics textbooks. Could the theories be wrong? Sure. Got any better ones? (ones invoking supernatural creatures don’t count).

    Perhaps it is better phrased as particle creation with no apparent cause. But I’m not up on the cutting edge there. Not my field. And apparently not yours either.

    I have absolutely no idea who I’m talking to, apart from someone who hasn’t read the Standards & Practices, or who has but doesn’t care. And who can’t even spell PZ’s name correctly. (That does seem to be common with a certain type of troll).

    Science isn’t a collection of facts, or Knowledge, or Truth, it’s a method for determining and describing, to the best of our abilities the universe in which we reside.

    We use it because it works. And because I am a scientist I am willing to alter my opinions and understanding when evidence is presented to me that a theory is incorrect. But only when this evidence is presented. You don’t got no evidence, I don’t got no time for you.

  64. alexmartin says

    I am gonna put this to rest.
    I am not interested in God or deities or religion or faith or any of that crap. I am not interested in proving he/it/they exist or any such foolishness. I am not stealthily pushing for religious conversion. I am not proselytizing or godbotting or whatever the f*&k.

    Screw all that.

    I don’t care what you believe. If there were a god, I wouldn’t care if you floated on clouds for eternity or roasted in aq hell. Whatever. You do you. Dig?

    What I care about is the militant stridency wafting up from the atheist came. How y’all are just so damn sure, so certain, that you Know Sh*t.

    Uh huh.

    How dare any of you force upon the world the the lie that you Know Sh*t?

    Just go on and say that you do not Know Sh*t beyond what you can see and detect. Go on and say that to the best of our ability, on this humble little rock orbiting a modest star in the backwaters of a mediocre galaxy, we have put together what we believe to be a viable, plausible story based upon what we can perceive and detect, but beyond that, we don’t Know Sh*t.

    And if someone should come along and tell you that before there was time and space and matter there was Identity that kickstarted the whole affair, get outta their face, give a humble shrug, and remember that ultimately beyond what you can see and detect, test, verify or falsify, presently, and perhaps well into the future, when it comes to knowing Where It All Began, you Don’t Know Shit.

    You dig?

  65. says

    What I care about is the militant stridency wafting up from the atheist came. How y’all are just so damn sure, so certain, that you Know Sh*t.

    Science it works

  66. alexmartin says

    Yes, Ing, indeed.
    Science (,the people in engaged in the practice, and the processes thereof,)works.
    Marvelously, gloriously, fantastically, critically, crucially.
    Thank you very much.

  67. 'Tis Himself, OM. says

    It appears alexmartin was trying to troll us and we weren’t playing properly. He seemed confused between condescension and rage. Now he’s retreated to accusing us of knowing things and admitting our knowledge.

    A very odd troll.

  68. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    How dare any of you force upon the world the the lie that you Know Sh*t?

    How dare you make the evidenceless claim that science doesn’t work? Talk about utter and total bullshit.

    Science works because it is self-correcting and evidence based. Mistakes are acknowledged and work goes forward. Compare this to a presuppositional and imaginary deity, and an inerrant book that is mythology/fiction. Being inerrant there is no error correction, and any and all errors that crept in are still there. If there are other ways of knowing, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstate that they exist, and that they give reproducible results that do advance the knowledge of mankind. Presupposing an imaginary and evidenceless deity does none of that.

    And if someone should come along and tell you that before there was time and space and matter there was Identity that kickstarted the whole affair,

    Evidenceless claims can be dismissed with prejudice. YOu aren’t advancing your cause, merely making yourself look like an ignorant and presuppositional godbot/creobot.

    when it comes to knowing Where It All Began, you Don’t Know Shit.

    Neither do you. And an imaginary deity/creator is nothing but utter and total bullshit, oh fuckwitted one. If you knew shit, you wouldn’t have embarrassed yourself with your inane and ignorant posts.

  69. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Oh, and AM, the question no presuppositionalist creobot ever answers is how the creator came about. They just wave their hands and make the special pleading of “eternal”. Evidenceless claims like that can and will be dismissed out of hand. Solid and conclusive physical evidence, try it.

  70. KG says

    alexmartin,

    Questions that the eminent Hawkings himself is wrestling with

    It’s Hawking, lackwit.

    Let the evidence lead where it may, I say.

    Problem with that?

    None whatever. The thing is, there is currently no evidence whatever for a creator or deity of any kind.

    Dig?

    Did you come through a timewarp from the 1960s?

    What I care about is the militant stridency

    Don’t you mean strident militancy?

    How dare any of you force upon the world the the lie that you Know Sh*t?

    Neither “know” nor “shit” needs an initial upper-case letter there, you semi-literate poseur; and if you mean “shit”, write “shit”, you mealy-mouthed dumbfuck. For someone claiming to be more sceptical than the sceptics, you certainly are sure of yourself. “Lie”, for example, implies deliberate deception; so you are claiming that not only are we wrong, but that we know we are wrong. How do you know?

    remember that ultimately beyond what you can see and detect, test, verify or falsify, presently, and perhaps well into the future, when it comes to knowing Where It All Began, you Don’t Know Shit.

    I do know that random capitalisation is a sure sign of stupidity.

  71. says

    Second, You do not KNOW what happened a few nanoseconds after the (heretofore comically derided) “Big Bang”: you have various notions and hypothesis about inflation.

    Do you recognize the difference?

    The inflation hypothesis makes specific predictions about the structure of the universe at the largest scale, which makes it testable.
    You, on the other hand, are babbling about some nebulous thing called “Identity” that somehow existed before time, space and matter, and not only fails to make a testable prediction, it conveniently allows for any idea you might ever want to make a case for.
    Do you recognize the difference? Dig? Can you surrey? Can you picnic?
    (Yes, I did come through a time warp from the 1960’s.)

  72. anteprepro says

    So, we get from Mr. Martin a combination of someone thumping their chest about being More Skeptical than Thou, while dropping off those hoary chestnuts about atheist stridency/arrogance in between frequent bouts of JAQing off to the tune of “Teach the Controversy!”. Why is that these supposedly objective, humble folk with no dog in the fight assume that the people who confidently reject creationism must not know about creationism, and virtually never apply that same standard to those who reject evolution in favor of creationism? Perhaps these objective, humble skeptics might want to actually show that they have a grasp of what the expert consensus on the matter is and the evidence and arguments presented, before they stink up the conversation with their blather about how the pro-science side needs to give the awful PRATTs of creationists yet another consideration. Just some food for the thoughtless.

  73. alexmartin says

    It gets deeper and deeper.
    SCIENCE is the best thing man has to offer and available. The scientific method is the best product, bar none, that mankind has ever devised.

    Without which, All would be lost in a miasma of savagery and mysticism.

    There is my line in the sand, Don’t accuse me again of being anti-science or anti-scientific.

    I have made myself clear, or it should have been:

    The origins story of something out of a nothing which is really an eternally varied permutation of something is on par with the Causeless first Cause of the theist, whether you like it, see it, admit it, acknowledge it or not. There is no answer for why an amaranthine void should not be just that.

    Hate the messenger. You were not there to witness a thing and neither was I. The difference is that I have no investment in the game, and you do.

  74. says

    Yes, Ing, indeed.
    Science (,the people in engaged in the practice, and the processes thereof,)works.
    Marvelously, gloriously, fantastically, critically, crucially.
    Thank you very much.

    Which shoots down your complaint about how dare we think we know shit.

    Or how about this

    In lack of evidence the null claim atheism is rational rather than the positive claim theism.

  75. says

    There is my line in the sand, Don’t accuse me again of being anti-science or anti-scientific.

    After you promote AiG?

    Hey don’t accuse me of being racist just because I speak favorably of World Net Daily or Stormfront!

  76. says

    To quote Sherlock Holmes “Every disguise is a self portrait”

    Your protests to the contrary you use language, buzz words, ‘facts’ and tactics that out you clearly as not being scientific, skeptical, or rational.

    There’s even a Bingo board of these kinds of tropes, you’ve been hitting every square.

    Oh and your insistance on writing Shit without actually writing it sort of pings you as superstitious and thus probably creationist along with the other evidence.

    A nice liberal believer who was intelligent would easily recognize that S#!T or Sh*T is easily read as shit, and thus people read the intention and thus is equivalent to saying it. If they meant to say shit they would say shit, if not they wouldn’t

    However, someone who is concerned about following a rule on swearing would try to ‘cheat’ by meaning shit, and saying shit but not writing shit. This of course is utter shit.

    From this alone we can make a very good guess that you follow a fiat based moral system (the intent or outcome isn’t what determines morality, it’s preset by a list of rules) which along with AIG and your other insipidity means that creaotard is a safe bet. Less likely but possible is a newage duntz or just stupid moderate christian. But I’m ruling that out since your opening language was that of confrontation and accusation, not falling in line with the more egalitarian beliefs.

  77. alexmartin says

    Oh, and:
    *Yes, it’s Myers, not “Meyers”.
    *I am (unsurprisingly) not proficient in emphasis and the like with this system. Don’t know how to italicize and whatnot. Yes, I cap words for emphasis. Sue me.
    *You all are still calling me names, creo-bot, god-bot. Can you get through your heads that this is not an either/or proposition?
    *Yes, the man is Hawking, not “Hawkings”. Typos happen that shouldn’t.

  78. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You all are still calling me names, creo-bot, god-bot. Can you get through your heads that this is not an either/or proposition?

    Quit lying and bullshitting. Either a deity/creator exists or doesn’t. It is either one or the other. So put up evidence for a creator, or shut the fuck up about it. Any speculation without evidence is bullshit, and is done by godbots/creobots trying to sound sciency while ignoring their presuppositions. Any semi-intelligent person can see that, which leaves you out.

  79. says

    You all are still calling me names, creo-bot, god-bot. Can you get through your heads that this is not an either/or proposition?

    Asked and answered.

    Walking like duck, whining like duck, blah blah blah

    I am (unsurprisingly) not proficient in emphasis and the like with this system.

    by system do you mean English?

    Don’t know how to italicize and whatnot. Yes, I cap words for emphasis. Sue me.

    A common behavior seem with religious cranks. Quack Quack Quack

    Yes, the man is Hawking, not “Hawkings”. Typos happen that shouldn’t.

    You don’t want to get into a typo whine with me. Seriously.

  80. says

    @Nerd

    Now to be fair it’s true it isn’t creao/science…since there’s other options of varying wrongness (ie a Hindu creationist or Moony).

    But with him, he’s trying to fool us with Groucho glasses. It’s frankly insulting.

  81. alexmartin says

    [ Ing, gotta take you up on something, since you went all political and shit( yep, that word, never been comfortable with it cause that’s what my folks taught me, but screw it). WND and Stormfront aint the same, schmuck. As a black conservative I resent that asininity.]

  82. says

    As a black conservative I resent that asininity

    As a black you should resent WND.

    Also, thank you for confirming. Isn’t it better now to not be hiding?

    Conservative Christian. What a surprise.

    Of course due to your past lying I highly doubt black. Not that there aren’t black conservatives, but that you as someone who is clearly comfortable trying to pass themselves off as a member of another group to lend yourself legitimacy…well yeah.

  83. anteprepro says

    The origins story of something out of a nothing which is really an eternally varied permutation of something is on par with the Causeless first Cause of the theist, whether you like it, see it, admit it, acknowledge it or not.

    Have you been paying any attention to what the people here have actually said? Here is what the science says, basically: “The universe exists, the Big Bang happened and gave us the universe as we presently know it, we don’t know what the universe looked like before the Big Bang”. The theist inserts “Causeless first Cause” into the time period that we don’t know about, while the atheist inserts nothing. Those are not comparable positions, because the latter is a prime example of not leaping to conclusions and not adding unsupported ideology to the science. Theistic evolutionists do something similar in regards to evolution, accepting the science but still believing, without evidence of a God or evidence of divine guidance, that God divinely guided evolution. Bluster all you like about how much you appreciate science. You have still defended creationism, and still do so by pretending that those that don’t insert things into the scientific explanations are just as bad as those that do. The person who sincerely believes that is not a person that truly respects the power of scientific explanations.

  84. says

    Ing, gotta take you up on something, since you went all political and shit( yep, that word, never been comfortable with it cause that’s what my folks taught me, but screw it

    Interesting. most people shrug off those sort of parental childish taboos around 14 or so…but not you. Also interesting how it’s protecting the WND that drives you to profanity you’re normally not comfortable with.

    Aig, WND, quack quack quack.

  85. alexmartin says

    But anyway, I tire of this. Paltry children, so petrified of the notion of a god you’ll tear down anyone or anything that reminds you in any way of your night terrors. F-in’ sad. Hell yeah, I’m skeptical of the tripe your selling, because it’s senseless. I gave you physicists who say it’s senseless, and you kind folk call me names? Get a frickin’ bib and a bottle while you’re at it.

    And all this stupidity about some creationist this and creaobot that and similar mindless banality. Is that the best you got? That’s it? The other guy’s just gotta be talkin’ ’bout some God or sumpin’ ’cause I don’t understand otherwise. What the fuck?

    Craziness. It comforts you to cast me as a creationist? Fine. I ask the questions you won’t and challenge the dogma you can’t on fear of ex-communication from the tribe.

    So be it.

    Simple, close-minded hillfolk.

  86. says

    But anyway, I tire of this. Paltry children, so petrified of the notion of a god you’ll tear down anyone or anything that reminds you in any way of your night terrors.

    And all this stupidity about some creationist this and creaobot that and similar mindless banality. Is that the best you got? That’s it? The other guy’s just gotta be talkin’ ’bout some God or sumpin’ ’cause I don’t understand otherwise. What the fuck?

    Gee how could we ever get an idea like that

  87. anteprepro says

    Paltry children, so petrified…tear down anyone.. night terrors. F-in’ sad….tripe your selling…senseless. I gave you physicists who say it’s senseless…call me names? Get a frickin’ bib and a bottle.. stupidity about some creationist… similar mindless banality…
    Craziness…I ask the questions you won’t and challenge the dogma you can’t on fear of ex-communication from the tribe…Simple, close-minded hillfolk.

    I believe the First Responders had it right on this one: Yawn. Stick the flounce this time.

  88. says

    Paltry children, so petrified of the notion of a god you’ll tear down anyone or anything that reminds you in any way of your night terrors.

    This is why we think you’re a creationist; you’ve got that “spewing out unevidenced claims” bit down pat.
    I can only speak for myself on the “night terrors,” (never had them), but no one here is petrified of the notion of a god. We’re bothered by idiots who want to mix up religious notions with science, and by the people who claim authority over us based on some imagined relationship with a being they can’t show evidence for, and whose qualities they can’t seem to agree on.
    And no, cherry-picking one physicist from a vanishingly small minority that has abandoned everything they learned on the way to their degree is not convincing.
    I might also point out that I haven’t called you any names, although given how you ignored my previous post, it seems to be the only way to get your attention.
    “Hill-folk?” Really? Nice sweeping stereotype, there. Good to see you’ve got that critical thinking thing down so well.

  89. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Paltry children, so petrified of the notion of a god you’ll tear down anyone or anything that reminds you in any way of your night terrors.

    The only child here is you. You keep making claims without evidence, and lack the honesty and integrity to shut the fuck up about them. I have no trouble sleeping. You want me to consider your imaginary deity to be real, show me the equivalent of the eternally burning bush. Or, be honest enough to acknowledge all you have is faith, and belief without evidence is a sign of delusional thinking.

    Simple, close-minded hillfolk.

    Now, what evidence is required for you to give up the notion that your imaginary deity exists? Show how you are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between a discussion, where you could be wrong, and preaching, where you can’t possible be wrong. Still showing us what a pathetic and dishonest person you are.

    ’cause I don’t understand otherwise.

    I used to go to church, etc. Then I read the babble as a teenager. A leading cause of atheism is actually reading the babble and thinking about evidence for a deity. There isn’t any. And you are presenting no evidence for a deity, just the typical vacuuous claims like any godbot/creobot. If you don’t like being called that, stop sounding like that. Grow-up mentally and actually discuss your problem instead of name calling, which you resorted due to lack of a cogent argument.

  90. KG says

    You were not there to witness a thing and neither was I. – alexmartin

    Yet another creationist trope – if you’re not one, you’re certainly giving a convincing imitation. Neither of us were there to witness the American Civil War either. So fucking what? (BTW, I see you’re also too prissy to write “fucking” when that’s what you mean. Contemptible moral cowardice to add to the stupidity made plain by your inability to find out how to italicise.)

    WND and Stormfront aint the same, schmuck.

    Both racist, both brainless. Close enough.

  91. says

    Damn, I always seem to get here after the flecks of spittle have begun to dry.

    alexmartin, what were you trying to accomplish here? Your attempts at pretending to be science-minded were awkward and transparent, and the sudden bursts of flames at odd intervals didn’t help your cause.

    Unless, that is, you were trying to portray creationists as dishonest and having severe self-control issues…was that your aim? Because if it was, good show. Otherwise, not so much.

  92. says

    Paltry children, so petrified of the notion of a god you’ll tear down anyone or anything that reminds you in any way of your night terrors.

    lol

    Wait, he’s serious? Wow…

  93. says

    Hey shithead Martin, tell us how to use flood geology to find oil, like real, honest deep-time geology is used presently. Or how “design” could be used to meaningfully predict anything in biology.

    Until you can do that we’re safe to recognize you as nothing but a hateful bigot who doesn’t even want to persuade anybody to your lies, but only wants to spew hatred against those of us who understand science.

    Glen Davidson

  94. says

    I do wonder if that’s a projection of their own mind, or the propagation of evangelical apologetics. What’s there to fear? And what does that have anything to do with the absurdity of Creationism?

    Surely the best way to see whether or not the creation account of Genesis has any merit is whether or not it’s backed by the empirical evidence. God has nothing to do with it! It’s interesting that discussion of Creationism often hinge around God…

  95. David Marjanović says

    alexmartins, the HTML tags are above the comment window. Play around with them – you’ll soon notice that <b>this</b> turns into this, for example.

    And if the Whirled Nut Daily is considered a flagship of conservative thought in the USA, as opposed to a painful embarrassment that is best ignored because of the lack of thought it so richly displays, your country is doomed, and much of the world with it.

    The origins story of something out of a nothing which is really an eternally varied permutation of something is on par with the Causeless first Cause of the theist, whether you like it, see it, admit it, acknowledge it or not.

    “John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

    Creationism is wrong; inflation theory may well be wrong; but to imply that both of them are equally wrong is wronger than both of them put together.

  96. Ichthyic says

    I gave you physicists who say it’s senseless

    How about if I give you a biologist that says quantum theory is senseless.

    The president of an entire country that says that the the germ theory of disease is senseless?

    somehow, on any other aspect of science, I doubt you would find similar appeals to authority as you give us convincing.

    but then, you ARE rather pathetic.

  97. Brownian says

    I ask the questions you won’t and challenge the dogma you can’t on fear of ex-communication from the tribe.

    So be it.

    Simple, close-minded hillfolk.

    Will you answer a question for me before you go, Alex? As someone who wrote the above, do you actually think that it’s an original insult or even a good one? I mean, you’ve got to be aware that the claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a groupthinking dogmatist is about as ubiquitous as writing LOL, and as such, carries the same impact. I don’t care whether or not you spend your time on atheist blogs, evolutionist ones, Christian ones, Muslim ones, climate change ones, 9/11 truth ones, chihuahua fancier ones, or snickerdoodle recipe-only ones: some pissed off person has accused you of being a sheeple.

    So, as you clearly think you’re a smart fella, and I’m happy to entertain that claim, I’d like to know why a smart fella would use the exact same content-free argument that everyone on the internet uses to insult their opponents.

    I mean, if you’re really so objective and free of dogma, how come you were unable to come up with anything more original or effective than the oldest cliché on the internet?

  98. says

    The origins story of something out of a nothing which is really an eternally varied permutation of something is on par with the Causeless first Cause of the theist, whether you like it, see it, admit it, acknowledge it or not. There is no answer for why an amaranthine void should not be just that.

    point of interest: whining about the “something out of nothing” thing is so pre-1930’s. We now know that stuff pops into existence uncaused, just because it can.

  99. janine says

    I would rather be “childish” and at least be on the right path when it comes to acquiring knowledge than to be an “adult” who is easily lead astray by charlatans.

  100. alexmartin says

    So finally, I will be as succinct as humanly possible.
    I speak for myself and no one else and no institution of man.
    I speak of a fundamental quandary for which none of you nor extant science has any answer, to my satisfaction at least. The core question, an important one to my mind.

    As there is no First Cause, there can be no origin for anything. No eternally existing anything. To my putative deluded reasoning, there should be absolute void, an absence of anything, of energies or potentialities; an endless, unfathomable, expanseless void. Null, in entirety.

    The only condition possible, as there is nothing to cause anything to be. No possibility for particles to emerge, no possibility for matter.

    I understand that you cannot think this way or allow this concept to creep into your minds. You will, if you haven’t already, convince yourself that the proposition itself is folly. And why…? Only because things do exist, and no other reason. Petitio principii, circular reasoning par excellence, an unforgivable tautology. To my simple mind at least.

    That is my position and mine alone.
    What you know of science, noble though it may be, has no answer to this question. A question worth asking.

    Have at it.

  101. says

    I understand that you cannot think this way or allow this concept to creep into your minds. You will, if you haven’t already, convince yourself that the proposition itself is folly. And why…? Only because things do exist, and no other reason.

    Turtles all the way down

  102. Ichthyic says

    So finally, I will be as succinct as humanly possible.

    liar.

    there can be no origin for anything

    do apples cause oranges?

  103. Ichthyic says

    Turtles all the way down

    using the word “recursive” would have as succinct as humanly possible though.

    ;)

  104. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I speak of a fundamental quandary for which none of you nor extant science has any answer, to my satisfaction at least.

    Who gives a shit what a presuppositionalist like you thinks? I don’t. Egotism run rampant.

    No possibility for particles to emerge, no possibility for matter.

    Ever hear of vacuum quantum fluctuations? Obviously not, and don’t care as it doesn’t conform to to your presuppositions.

    What you know of science, noble though it may be, has no answer to this question. A question worth asking.

    Been there, done that, no deities/creator required. As I said, who gives a shit what a delusional fuckwittted thinker like you believes. Deities/creators are presuppositions, not conclusions, unless you take the step to show how said creator came about. Nothing from you on that. We have your lying and bullshitting number.

  105. says

    What you know of science, noble though it may be, has no answer to this question. A question worth asking.

    All those comments, all those words, and it all comes down to an argument from ignorance.
    And insisting that we’re just as ignorant as you (“What you know of science”).

    That is my position and mine alone.

    Do you have a theory about dinosaurs?

  106. says

    What you know of science, noble though it may be, has no answer to this question. A question worth asking

    phrasing is hilarious similar to the JAQing off of “history” channel shows.

  107. Brownian says

    Thanks for answering my question in 111, alexwinter.

    That you think the Cosmological Argument is “[yours] and [yours] alone” explains it perfectly.

    I bet you invented fire all by yourself too.

  108. says

    As there is no First Cause, there can be no origin for anything.

    What’s a “First Cause,” dumbass. Show your work, that is, actual meaningful evidence.

    Now, just supposing that we end up with a “First Cause” of some meaning and evidence, what reason would we have to believe that it would be “God”? Just because some idiot like yourself defined God as the “First Cause that needs no beginning” or some other meaningless lie?

    We don’t have a problem with there being large questions, just with fucking liars like you who pretend sans evidence that a certain fiction answers any remaining “large question.”

    Glen Davidson

  109. anteprepro says

    I speak of a fundamental quandary for which none of you nor extant science has any answer, to my satisfaction at least. The core question, an important one to my mind.

    “And therefore, because science doesn’t have answer, I can believe random bullshit to be just as plausible until it does!”

    As there is no First Cause, there can be no origin for anything. No eternally existing anything. To my putative deluded reasoning, there should be absolute void, an absence of anything, of energies or potentialities; an endless, unfathomable, expanseless void. Null, in entirety.

    And if the Big Bang is the Uncaused First Cause? Or if causality doesn’t work the simplistic way our everyday experience suggets, because physics can be fucking complicated? Your putative deluded reasoning means fuck all and remains a desperate leap to conclusions in order to have something you can cling onto when science suggests something more complicated, or gives no answer. It’s pathetic and presumptive, not logical.

    I understand that you cannot think this way or allow this concept to creep into your minds.

    Let these possibilities creep into your mind, for a moment:
    -That we’ve heard all of these arguments for First Causes, etc. before.
    -That we know the majority of arguments for creationism and why they are wrong.
    -That we actually have good logically and scientifically supported reasons for believing as we do.
    -That we have heard all of the pleas for Both Sides and Open Minds before.
    -That these are the reasons we are “arrogant” and “strident”.

    Many of us are former believers. Virtually all of us have heard the best schlock believers can offer regarding a First Cause as a trojan horse for Capital G monotheistic gods. The majority here are rather scientifically literate and poke holes in creationist canards for fun. And you barge in here, pretending that you offering something unique in defending the nonsense of a creationist organization merely for the sake of Teaching the Controversy. Which for you relates entirely the origin of the universe, and not at all to biological evolution. A confusion common of creationists, which you claim not to be. I really don’t think we are the ones who aren’t accurately reflecting upon the views of the Other Side, bucko.

    What you know of science, noble though it may be, has no answer to this question. A question worth asking.

    And you think that AIG legitimately approaches that question? Well, that is where you fail.

  110. Ichthyic says

    Brownian earlier:

    So, as you clearly think you’re a smart fella

    He’s clearly demonstrated it’s a case of Dunning-Kruger at this point.

    which also explains why he didn’t answer you.

    he couldn’t.

  111. A. Noyd says

    Maybe when he’s done masturbating with his thesaurus he’ll break out the dictionary and look up what “succinct” means. Also, I find it funny that he neglected to actually state the question in question anywhere in his 200-word-long sneer.

  112. alexmartin says

    Post #120.
    I have been as generous with you as possible. Again, you demonstrate my point.

    Like a thief in the temple, you pocket and try to sneak away a proposition you have yet to prove. You have a vacuum quantum fluctuation. Where in hell did you get the energy within the vacuum to fluctuate?

    I knew you would be dishonest and an intellectual thief. Original thinker? Better minds than your own gave you your out, and you greedily swallowed the line all the way up to the boat.

    Now, again, I will tell you that you cannot get something for nothing. You may not have a free lunch.

    Every effect must have a cause. There is no cause. There can be no effect. No chain of causation. Stay true to what you profess.

    There should be a Void. An absolute Void. Said another way for your delectation, a void that is absolute. There should be a totality of Nothing. No seething proto-state of infinite potentialities from which particles may “emerge” from a pseudo-vacuum; no thing whatsoever.

    The concept is so simple to understand, so pure, I did not expect you to understand it.

  113. anteprepro says

    The concept is so simple to understand, so pure, I did not expect you to understand it.

    And you are so simplistic, I could not expect you to understand why your concept is poorly applied to existence itself. It would be uncharacteristic of you.

  114. alexmartin says

    And to all of you: keep shoveling your god-talk at me. What. Ever.
    I put forth an absolute negative that by it’s very nature requires no proofs. Your starting point for “science” requires something for “science” to operate upon. I give you nothing whatsoever. Start with that and work your way up.

    Start with your bootstraps.

    The burden of proof is on you, and always has been. No sleight of hand will suffice to hoodwink.

    Begin with Total Nothing. Maybe then you can talk.

  115. anteprepro says

    The burden of proof is on you, and always has been.

    The burden of proof is on the side that says “Well, we don’t actually know precisely how the universe came about, let’s wait for evidence”? And not on the side of “Universe exists, therefore universe must have been caused, therefore that cause is an eternal supernatural entity that has a special interest in life, especially human life”? That’s a rather novel approach to burden of proof, if I do say so myself.

    Begin with Total Nothing. Maybe then you can talk.

    I’m quite sure that you have the monopoly on nothing at this point. Yet it hasn’t stopped you from talking. Fancy that.

  116. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I have been as generous stupid with you as possible.

    Fixed that for you. You haven’t said anything cogent at all.

    Where in hell did you get the energy within the vacuum to fluctuate?

    Shows you don’t understand the concept. And zero point energy is not energyless. There are still quantum fluctuations. All you have is delusional thinking, and it shows.

    I knew you would be dishonest and an intellectual thief.

    No, that is you, your pseudo superior play-acting, and your lack of cogent arguments with evidence.

    Original thinker?

    That isn’t you or any godbot. Deities are the refuge of the lazy thinker. Smart folks realize that, and find better arguments, and evidence.

    Now, again, I will tell you that you cannot get something for nothing. You may not have a free lunch.

    Assertion without evidence. Which is why we consider you a liar, bullshitter, and delusional fool. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And all your assertions are dismissed as bullshit.

    An absolute Void.

    Absolutes are terms used by presuppositionalists, not thinkers. You don’t think.

    The concept is so simple to understand, so pure, I did not expect you to understand it.

    Since you don’t understand it, and have no evidence for it, we can’t figure out your delusional thinking. You aren’t as smart as you pretend to be. That was obvious to us here from your first inane post.

    Oh, and still no evidence or arguement for how your deity/creator came to be. TSK, TSK. Fatal stupid and ignorant flaw.

  117. Ichthyic says

    I have been as generous with you as possible. Again, you demonstrate my point.

    if your point is to claim recursive arguments are unique and worth asking, then your point is useless and inane.

    otherwise, you’re just rambling inanities and incoherence.

    I’d suggest seeing someone about that. It might be treatable.

  118. Ichthyic says

    Begin with Total Nothing

    it’s already been done.

    you ignored it because you don’t understand it.

    here’s one for you:

    start with a sperm and an egg, and then get us to you, now.

    show your work.

  119. alexmartin says

    Hung by your own rope.
    There is no cause or origin for God. Granted. As that is the case, there can be no God.

    Granted. There is no God.

    Do you see where I am going, Nerd?

    Go on, take the rope.

  120. says

    And to all of you: keep shoveling your god-talk at me. What. Ever.
    I put forth an absolute negative that by it’s very nature requires no proofs. Your starting point for “science” requires something for “science” to operate upon. I give you nothing whatsoever. Start with that and work your way up.

    Start with your bootstraps.

    The burden of proof is on you, and always has been. No sleight of hand will suffice to hoodwink.

    Begin with Total Nothing. Maybe then you can talk.

    It’s like someone made a program to turn platitudes and depitys into sentences.

  121. says

    Hung by your own rope.
    There is no cause or origin for God. Granted. As that is the case, there can be no God.

    Granted. There is no God.

    Do you see where I am going, Nerd?

    Go on, take the rope.

    Um yeah…you sure showed him?

    And why are you talking like a 14 year old Dungeon Master?

  122. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Just because the average energy is something doesn’t mean you can’t get fluctuations in energy, it just means the larger the energy fluctuation, the less time you can have it for.

    There is no cause or origin for any god, nor is there a need for an explanation of such because there is no evidence for any god.

    People investigate the origin of the universe on the other hand because there is evidence that this exists. Unlike any god.

  123. says

    Begin with Total Nothing

    Yes begin each day with Total Nothing. It takes over 30 bowls of your normal corp crisp cereal to get the amount of bullshit in just one bowl of Total Nothing!

  124. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Oh, and AM, total energy of the universe by the latest estimates: zero. From zero to zero…

  125. anteprepro says

    Speaking of rope:

    I put forth an absolute negative that by it’s very nature requires no proofs.

    Tell that to all the nutjobs out there who tell us that we need to prove God doesn’t exist in order to believe that It doesn’t! I mean, the absolute gall of people, asking for absolute proof of an absolute negative.

    I eagerly await your hedging. Or completely missing the point. Or ignoring my post altogether. It’s all very heartwarming, any way it goes.

  126. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Go on, take the rope.

    What rope. You have nothing but uninformed and meaningless blather, full of bullshit and illogical thinking, meaning nothing. What a prime example of Dunning Kruger in action.

  127. Ichthyic says

    Do you see where I am going, Nerd?

    yeah, we all do.

    but you can stop yourself from ending up in an assylum, if you seek medical help now!

    seriously, your ignorance of cosmology alone is so astounding as to be the only reason anyone wonders what you’re going to post next.

    In fact, your ignorance is so great, it’s obviously what keeps you thinking you have some profound insight into things.

    This syndrome has been so well documented, it even has a name:

    Dunning-Kruger.

    ..after the two primary researchers who studied it and publicized the results.

    now, as I said before, all we can really help you out with here is simply giving you ideas on how to properly flounce, when you inevitably do, because you think we are all so

    Close Minded.

    hattip to sketch.

  128. says

    Begin with Total Nothing. Maybe then you can talk.

    Of course, that’s not where you’re beginning, is it? You’re allowed to posit a universe that begins with an eternal, intelligent creature who “just is,” but science has to start with a nothingness that may never have existed?

    I put forth an absolute negative that by it’s very nature requires no proofs.

    Wow, that’s convenient. Your argument is simple and pure and requires no evidence.
    You know why science doesn’t have all the answers? Because answers are fucking hard. Unless, of course, you get to make shit up and believe it. And when you require no evidence, that’s what you’re doing.
    Of course this asswipe hasn’t responded to me yet, so I’m just wasting my time, apparently.
    (whack whack whack) Is this thing on?

  129. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    I’m not sure he responds to anyone except to patronise them feralboy12, even his ‘apology’ to me was immensely patronising. I am not ‘madam’ either.

    But yes, I’m agreeing with the conclusion that it’s a classic case of Dunning Kruger effect.

  130. anteprepro says

    (whack whack whack) Is this thing on?

    Whether it happens to be on or off, this alexmartin unit is clearly defective. It’s getting to the point where I don’t think it is displaying Dunning-Kruger as much as it is failing the Turing Test.

  131. Ichthyic says

    As to the question posed by the OP…

    should PZ care whether Gibberson shows well against Ham?

    yes.

    why?

    Uncle Karl actually shows signs of awakening from his religious coma.

    He has abandoned (and been thrust out of) the Biologos project.

    I see a glimmer of hope there.

    Ham, OTOH, just wants to rape piglets.

    gotta root for uncle Karl in that matchup.

  132. says

    So do you want to explain why you felt the need to misrepresent yourself at all?

    Also note, there’s no defense of the “I’m black…really…REALLY!” cause you have been lying about a lot.

  133. says

    Of course this asswipe hasn’t responded to me yet, so I’m just wasting my time, apparently.
    (whack whack whack) Is this thing on?

    Insult World Net Daily, apparently that does it. People tend to get upset when their religion is challenged after all.

  134. alexmartin says

    Binary logic as a defense against the insuperable. All this god talk. Gibberish.

    I don’t care about no god. but you people, though, y’all are obsessed (add italics for emphasis).

    F*#k–oops, correction–fuck all that. Give it a rest.

    The only post meriting a rebuttal is #140, The good Dr. Ariaflame, to whom I’ll say that you need a universe for a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to apply to. Certainly.

    You need water and/or soil to grow a plant. You need matter to formulate a universe.

    Yes, you investigate what exists. You speculate about how it might have been before it existed. Well and good.

    There should be nothing whatsoever to exist to contingently bring you about to investigate it.

    All this casuistry concerning what exists because it exists doesn’t begin to explain in even naturalistic terms the reason why it(italics added for emphasis) or anything should exist in the first place.

    I don’t say that goddidit. That’s not my issue. But to repeat:

    If-
    There is no cause or origin for god,

    Then-
    God cannot exist

    Therefor-
    If there is no cause or origin for energy/matter

    Then-
    Energy/matter cannot exist.

    I expressed all this in the beginning of my idiotic harangue, if you will, and the issue remains for me to this minute.

    You might blithely accept that you could get something for nothing at no cost whatsoever but I.Don’t.Accept.That. (more poetic license.)

    Dig?

  135. says

    I expressed all this in the beginning of my idiotic harangue, if you will,

    I will.

    and the issue remains for me to this minute.

    Whoa, existential dread, dude.

    The only post meriting a rebuttal is #140, The good Dr. Ariaflame, to whom I’ll say that you need a universe for a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to apply to.

    Good thing we have one of those.

  136. says

    As there is no First Cause, there can be no origin for anything.

    first sentence, and already wrong; as I said, we already know uncaused things happen all the time.

    I’ll spare myself the rest of what follows in that post.

    Where in hell did you get the energy within the vacuum to fluctuate?

    to put it in terms your peanut-sized brain will understand: from the future. seriously, you’re arguing as if the knowledge of physics hasn’t changed since the 30’s.

    I will tell you that you cannot get something for nothing

    you can tell us all you want, but it’s not going to get any truer for the retelling.

    Every effect must have a cause.

    still wrong

    I put forth an absolute negative that by it’s very nature requires no proofs.

    actually, what you’re giving is a counterfactual, since there is something, not nothing. There’s a difference, which you’d know if you actually knew what you’re talking about instead of performing cargo cult science.

    If-
    There is no cause or origin for god,

    Then-
    God cannot exist

    yeah no, that’s not how it works. the Null Hypothesis is that god doesn’t exist, but there is no disproof of god; not even one contrived by you for the purpose of this mental masturbation you’re performing here. Uncaused events happen; lack of cause is therefore not disproof of existence.

  137. janine says

    Jadehawk, just as there is no free lunch in politics, there is no free lunch in physics. It really is the same principle.

  138. A. Noyd says

    If-
    There is no cause or origin for god,

    Then-
    God cannot exist

    If-
    Your premise is not true, and your logic is not valid,

    Then-
    Your argument is not sound.

    Now go away. You’re getting failsauce all over the place.

  139. says

    Jadehawk, just as there is no free lunch in politics, there is no free lunch in physics. It really is the same principle.

    you know, I wish he’d even be able to reason t that level, but even that is beyond him. Apparently the concept of paying for a meal AFTER eating it is foreign to him (so is the concept of a really cheap lunch (say, a 25cent packet of ramen) you don’t have to pay for for a very long time, if at all).

    :-p

  140. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    I wonder if he’s also one of the poor deluded fools that think the laws of thermodynamics prove that CO2 doesn’t cause climate change. I spent far too much time trying to educate one of those.

  141. Ichthyic says

    Give it a rest.

    the only thing you’ve said that made any sense, and you are unable to take your own best advice.

    sad, pathetic, little person.

  142. says

    First Cause, ergo Creation?

    The interesting thing about first cause arguments is that even if you accept that there’s such thing as a first cause, in no way does that entail anything remotely like a god, let alone the God of Christianity.

    This is what’s known as a gap argument, that even if the argument follows that there’s still a big gap between that and what God is. Deism is perfectly compatible with the first cause argument, for example, where the prime mover need not interfere with the affairs of humanity. But it need not be personal either, as this notion of personal causation is one of the contingencies the argument is trying to explain. Indeed, first cause argument is perfectly compatible with the physics we have now – there are several models that can explain the universe as it is now without any need for outside agency.

    But the question is, why do we have to start at absolutely nothing? How do we know that something is not the natural state of things? Heck, you’ve even invoked something to explain how something can come from nothing, so it’s hardly a fair argument that you can invoke something while demanding that others can’t. You’re challenge is building in an impossibility that you won’t take yourself. What it looks like you are doing is putting forward a model with God doing everything, taking away God but expecting an equivalent to fill that God-shaped hole. It’s a very dishonest tactic of rhetoric!

  143. Ichthyic says

    You might blithely accept that you could get something for nothing at no cost whatsoever but I.Don’t.Accept.That. (more poetic license.)

    that’s because:

    you.are.a.moron.

  144. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, moron proving himself to be the least intelligent and least cogent person on the thread. Philosophical sophistry, presupposition, handwaving, ignorance, and special pleading. Not one iota of coherence or evidence. Sounds like other trolls with similar problems. Boring, but loud.

  145. KG says

    add italics for emphasis – alexmartin

    You’re still too stupid and lazy to find out how to italicise, I see. Your complete ignorance of science has been evident throughout.

    Tell me, why should we take seriously the burblings of someone who has proved themselves to be stupid, lazy, and ignorant?

  146. anteprepro says

    Entertaining. The guy defending AIG and arguing for an eternal First Cause mocking us for bringing up God? And reiterating that he simply will not accept that physics presents cases of uncaused causes and something from nothing? I think we’ve got ourselves an aspiring rodeo clown. Or just an assclown. Some sort of clown, that’s for sure.

  147. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I think we’ve got ourselves an aspiring rodeo clown.

    I think he’s working on being (Mythies) Buster’s stunt double.

  148. says

    Tell me, why should we take seriously the burblings of someone who has proved themselves to be stupid, lazy, and ignorant?

    Also deceitful and hateful.