It’s the obligatory annual newspaper article on creationists confronted with evidence. In this case, young ignoramuses from Liberty University are filed through the Smithsonian Institution to practice closing their minds, while a newspaper reporter echoes their rationalizations. I hate these exercises in bad journalism: there is absolutely no critical thinking going on here, either among the creationists or the reporter writing it up. An example:
“I love it here,” said Ross, who has a doctorate in geosciences from the University of Rhode Island. “There’s something romantic about seeing the real thing.”
Modern creationists don’t deny the existence of dinosaurs but believe that God made them, and all animals, on the same sixth day that he created man. In fact, Ross’s only real beef in the fossil hall is with the 30-foot lighted column that is a timeline marking 630 million years of geology. As a young-Earth creationist, he asserts that the vast majority of the rocks and fossils were formed during Noah’s flood about 4,000 years ago. Most paleontologists date the T-Rex to 65 million years ago.
You know, it is possible to be a Christian and still have a rational respect for the evidence. Take, for example, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, an opponent of evolution in the 19th century, but also someone who worked out details of the geological column and determined that the idea that there was a single, defining world-wide flood was untenable. Or Charles Lyell, who struggled with the idea of evolution because it conflicted with his religious beliefs, but who was a major force in bringing about the understanding of geology as a product of continually acting forces. Or the Reverend William Buckland, who believed in a global flood, but regarded it as insufficient to account for the wealth of geological complexity — he would not have looked at the timeline and tried to compress it into the product of a single biblical event.
These were people working almost 200 years ago. The question of flood geology has long been settled — it’s wrong. And the evidence has only gotten stronger since for an old earth and a complex history. Marcus Ross is a man standing among a collection of some of the best and strongest and most thoroughly vetted and cross-checked evidence that directly contradicts what he claims, and he is spluttering out ignorant uncomprehending gibberish. He has a doctorate in the geosciences, we are always told, but he learned nothing. That ought to be the story here, about the peculiar psychology of these purblind creationists, but the journalist just let’s it slide by.
How bad is the ‘education’ these poor students receive at Liberty University? This anecdote tells the tale.
Near the end of the “Evolution Trail,” the class showed no signs of being swayed by the polished, enthusiastic presentation of Darwin’s theory. They were surprised, though, by the bronze statue of man’s earliest mammalian ancestor.
“A rat?” exclaimed Amanda Runions, a 21-year-old biochemistry major, when she saw the model of a morganucodon, a rodent-like ancient mammal that curators have dubbed Grandma Morgie. “All this hype for a rat? You’re expecting, like, at least an ape.”
Morganucodon is a genus of early mammals that lived over 200 million years ago. 200 million years ago. We’re talking about the Upper Triassic, in the early part of the Mesozoic. She is expecting apes? She thinks the only animals worth getting excited about must be primates? She is surprised by the fact that paleontology reveals a succession of forms, with the only mammals in the early Mesozoic being small rat-like forms? Oh, dear, don’t introduce her to the Paleozoic, she’ll be shocked at the mere fish that represent our ancestors of the time.
The real story here, the one that the staff writer for the Washington Post ignored, is that Liberty University is victimizing young people like that woman and making them believe that they are biochemistry majors when they’re actually being intellectually abused by an anti-scientific propaganda mill. There was a time when investigative journalism was actually practiced, and this would be an opportunity to expose a disgraceful pseudo-academic fraud.
“To look at anything in nature and say it occured naturally without a designer –most of us just can’t do it.”
You’re right. That’s why, over thousands of years, humans have invented thousands of gods as a way to explain things they can’t understand. Let’s see–Zeus, Mordak, Ba’al, Ra, Quetzlcoatl…the list goes on and on.
Your god is just another name on the list. Fictional, and very silly, just like all the rest.
Humans are more adaptable than skunks or bombardier beetles. We can easily survive in situations where they could not. If there is a controlled designer, why would he create them in the first place? Would an omnipotent “controller designer” go out of his way to create underperforming and redundant creations? If you could continuously create wonderfully engineered BMWs would you go out of your way to create Ford Pintos as well? Wouldn’t the presence of divergent designs imply that there isn’t one omnipotent Master Designer from on high, instead hinting at a bottom up process of subsequent versions of “good enough” “creations” which exhibit gradual progress along different paths?
Testimony of people who lived two generations after the Christ figure is supposed to have died. When the same New Testament contains books written earlier than the Gospels by Saul of Tarsus which seemingly has no concept of a physically incarnate Christ figure. Yeah, no room for misinterpretation or “creation” there.
Your argument from incredulity is not impressive, Barb.
Barb:
ICR/AIG long-debunked canard paste-fight, round #3912:
Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design
Your ignorance is not proof of God. Your personal incredulity is not proof of God. Evolution happens. Every species is a transitional form. Snore snore snore.
Plus, I just realized how inane this part of your comment was…
“To look at anything in nature and say it occured naturally…”
Nature.
Naturally.
See, things in nature do occur naturally. Finding that hard to comprehend?
“If there is a controlled designer” should be “controller designer”. I was just repeating Barb’s word usage, as I don’t understand exactly what she was implying but didn’t want to be accused of twisting someone’s words.
Barb The blowhard bimbo is back. No intellectual content to her stream of consciousness trainwreck. This is expected from foolish godbots. It makes them very funny. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. We’re laughing at you Barb the bozo.
Barb:
Boring Barb being Boring. “Bonified” was funny, though.
Barb, I know it’s been pointed out to you, but have you read up at all on the Dunning-Kruger Effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger
If you’re capable (and I’m doubtful), please read that article and consider, just consider, the possiblity that you are massively overestimating your knowledge of biology and massively underestimating the knowledge of the thousands of scientists who have worked and published in the field over the last 150 years or so.
Is it possible that you’re wrong, Barb?
Anthony K in 491 writes Some fundies really have decided that Pharyngula is a doorstep worth touching. They must get double jesus-beans just for stroking the doorknob, it’s triple for knock and run away, and the most unselfconcious of them invite themselves in for a little chat.
On the one hand, I like the idea of them getting punched, repeateadly in the face, while others eviscerate them with Stupid Knives and a jeering crowd yells on, on the other hand I feel, like going on a visit to Bedlam, that it’s sad. Is this the only place left where people really are allowed to mock the mentally ill?
Perhaps it’s time to give it all up.
Maybe, firebombing churches really is a better way…
Well, PZ, these are your followers! Why are they so hostile and hateful over faith in God and disagreement about origins???
Someone else here suggested there were no real scientists in science careers of the last 20 years who don’t believe in evolution. You know there are. Leading medical doctors are often people of faith who doubt evolution. I think of the leading pediatric neuro surgeon who is a believer (Carson) and the leading pediatric endocrinologist in my town who is a fundamentalist Calvinist creationist from Bob Jones U. –and my own creationist husband did excel in genetics in med school –though it was 34 years ago in his case. These men and many others are proof that you can be excellent in science without swallowing Darwin or becoming atheists.
Anthony is proof that Darwin-believers can devolve into those who hate and would incite violence over differences in belief! Others here have said creationists who are skeptical about evolution should not be employed in science careers.
Would you rather have the best in his field work on you in healthcare–or do you want a litmus test to check his evolutionist beliefs first???
It’s interesting that our American young people are not making it into med school –such that we have to have foreign doctors more and more. I guess the growing acceptance of evolution among them is not helping them.
Again — to the person who asked me if I would lose faith in God if macro-evolution were proven true –I said no –and forgot to add that I observe that those who DO believe in evolution, often DO lose their faith in God. I understand that many or some or most?? theorists of the Discovery Institute reportedly believe in evolution–but they believe God did it that way –that design requires designer. All creationists are ID theorists –but not all ID theorists are the same — some believe in evolution –some believe in a literal Genesis 6 Day creation –but they all believe in a Designer/Creator/God behind Creation. There are even some ATHEISTS who don’t believe in evolution –one was in that debate between the ID folks (on the evolution-refuting side ) and the evolutionists on PBS a few years back. I think he is the agnostic (scientist ?) (living in France) in the Expelled movie, who criticizes evolution –David Berlinski? who I hear is often a guest lecturer on Ivy League campuses.
Barb said “Christianity is history about a Jewish man who lived, healed, taught, died, resurrected and fit the description of the prophecied Messiah of Isaiah 53.”
If history is our guide, then we need to dismiss both the birth and the trial of Jesus as they are both historically inaccurate.
For example, when you say you “have no reason to doubt the testimonies of the NEw Testament writers”, Matthew gives the date of birth of Jesus as before 4BC, whereas Luke gives it has 6AD. One of them is wrong.
In fact, looking at the history of the early christian church, if Jesus existed, he was a Galilean teacher who was crucified for some reason. The ruckus with the money changes in the Temple at passover would be a very good reason for the romans to collar Jesus and nail him to a tree. They would not even need a trial.
The rest of the stories are an attempt to explain how the Messiah of all people came to be crucified. Not only was crucifixion horrible in itself, but the jews looked on it as a curse. (Bonus point to you if you can name the biblical passage (hint, it is Deuteronomy)).
Now, coming here yet again, spouting nonsense about something you know very little about, not only makes you look stupid, but must be a waste of your time. If you want to convince us of the existence of god, bring some evidence to the table.
Good luck in your quest for a meaningful, spiritual life but please stop wasting your time.
Barb asks:
Personally, I think God spared the poor bombardier beetle just so it could inspire you to ask that hilariously stupid question. Lord, I thank thee for the entertainment thou hast provided me this day.
Amen.
I don’t think so, Lowell. Where’s your proof? –not evidence –PROOF!
Banal Barb, could you please answer my question about Wernher von Braun. And could you please answer that because I am a lesbian, does that make me the moral equivalent of a rapist?
Also, Banal Barb, you have no room to talk about being hateful.
Barb, Anthony is being irreverant.
You need a sense of humour, or a really good f
Whoops, try again!
Barb, Anthony is being irreverant.
You need a sense of humour, or a really good friend to explain the humour.
Cosmic Teapot –why does it even matter to you if I waste my time??? There is more here in your remarks than concern for my waste of time, obviously. Why do YOU waste time commenting on my alleged waste of time? Is it important to you that I go away –and if so, why?
Yes, crucifixion was surely a curse, a disgrace, a horrible punishment for crime. And so it was prophesied that Jesus would be “numbered among transgressors” and “wounded for our iniquities.” He took the punishment for sin/crime/immorality/breaking God’s laws on himself –so that “all the world might be saved.”
as for discrepancies in dating –I wasn’t aware that the Gospel writers “dated” Christ’s birth–since the dating system for B.C./A.D. wasn’t established when they wrote. So just what are you referencing for your comment? I’m not at all bothered by journalistic differences in minor details in the Gospels –it’s just evidence that the Church scholars didn’t tamper with the scriptures to get all discrepancies reconciled. They aren’t important differences. Some will say, “but it shows error in scripture!” Maybe, maybe not. The important truths are intact and the same throughout the Bible.
Barb the blathering bimbo is still nothing but comic relief. Her stream of barely consciousness 22 car pile-up is golden. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously Barb, you should take it on the road.
Barb,
I don’t suppose you care to explain why God would create inferior creatures? Or qualify how a top-down Creation approach explains diversity of life better than a bottom-up, iterative approach?
I suppose you haven’t found the proper Answers in Genesis page yet.
Back again, you evil, judgemental parody of a Christian?
Jesus is disgusted with you. Every time you use his name, he winces in pain; every time you condemn some one’s nature or being, knowing nothing of what you speak, it is as a spear thrust to his flesh; every prideful thought and deed, mocks him, his humanity, and his sacrifice.
He wishes you a long, long life, and promises you will never gaze on his face when you enter the next.
@514: I didn’t think that was a typo so much as it was a little bit of self-censorship.
Me:
Barb:
I guess that says it all. It’s no use. Fine.
Which, of course, is not evidence of anything. It doesn’t matter what people can believe or what they can’t believe. The number of people who believe in something in nature is totally separate from whether or not that thing exists.
Before Neptune was discovered, no one was paying attention to it. But our ignorance of Neptune had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the planet was actually out there.
What a fuckin’ bonehead.
You “have no reason to doubt” a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders who claim to have witnessed miracles (but who did not, it is well established, witness anything firsthand). You “have no reason to doubt” that your imaginary father figure created humans fully formed, out of nothing–poof! The stories in the Bible are “evidence enough” for you, and consequently “evidence enough” that evolution is false, a giant hoax perpetrated by unbelievers.
So you have all sorts of reasons to doubt the thousands of highly educated men and women from around the the world who have created and refined the most comprehensive, beautiful scientific theory in the history of humankind. Generations of hardworking scientists who have devoted their entire lives to broadening our knowledge of the world we live in. Knowledge that has directly lead to advances in medicine which you yourself have no doubt benefited from. It’s all a fake in your mind, isn’t it?
From what you’ve written, it appears your “reasons” really come down to this: you’re ignorant of science, but not of the stories in the Bible. You’re afraid of science because you don’t understand it, and because it threatens your childhood cocoon of superstition and fantasy. You cling to your willful ignorance and religious certitude because you don’t know what else to do. Does that about sum it up, Barbie?
Lemme say it again: what a fuckin’ bonehead.
Banal Barb blurted:
as for discrepancies in dating –I wasn’t aware that the Gospel writers “dated” Christ’s birth–since the dating system for B.C./A.D. wasn’t established when they wrote. So just what are you referencing for your comment?
So human societies did not have a means to keep dates and records until the christians came along and gave us BC/AD? You do know that the Romans were meticulous record keepers. Have to in order to rule over a large empire.
I’m not at all bothered by journalistic differences in minor details in the Gospels –it’s just evidence that the Church scholars didn’t tamper with the scriptures to get all discrepancies reconciled.
Even biblical scholars who believe in a christian god know that you are wrong here. The Bible has been rewritten and edited in order to favor those who run the religion at various times in history. Just because you do not know the facts, it does not mean that the facts are false.
Barb once again that is not evidence, that is your confirmation bias showing. Please put it away, it is quite offensive.
#522
Bad assumption. Anyone that thinks there is no reason to doubt the testimonies in the New Testament is a True Believer — which generally means they are unfamiliar with the source material they Believe in. Consider also the following from Barb:
First off, it’s hard to say the Bible wasn’t “tampered with”. For me, the easiest way to think of it is that the act of creating “the Bible” was a process where synods decided which books to include as canon and which to consider apocrypha. The Bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, but it was church bureaucracies that decided what it actually consisted of amongst early Christian writings.
And anyone that says “the important truths are intact and the same throughout the Bible” without any explanation or qualification is not familiar with the source material. There’s a reason there are many thousands of Christian sects.
@ Barb #515:
No, the jewish prophesies were re-written in the christian version in order to say more what the christians wanted them to say for their fairy stories – and even then the christians still got important details such as the lineage wrong!
Liar. The many self-inconsistencies in the bible are one of the ways in which actually reading the thing turns people into atheists. The way it is repeatedly refuted by reality (eg scientific evidence at all levels, maths, the historical record etc) is another of the ways.
Similarly, the way you contradict yourself and are repeatedly and continually contradicted by reality tells us that you’re a load of rubbish too. Eg: in previous threads (post #90 onwards).
Have you asked your husband, the MD, about your heart claim (viz. “hearts that beat for a lifetime without any external energy source” from your post #90) yet, Barb? Or are you afraid to find out how much of an embarrassment to him you are; or reveal to us just how medically incompetent he is?
Barb
Stay if you will, it concerns me not and amuses the others. It is just that you repeat yourself ad nauseum, with no grasp of historical fact, and a mass of preaching.
However, you are quiet correct in that the gospel writers did not use our dating system. But we do. Now Matthew has Jesus born during Herods rule, which we know was before 4BC, the date of his death. But Luke has Jesus born during the time of the census of Quirinus, which we know was 7AD.
Another fact to note is the trial of Jesus, with its many curious details. One of the most obvious is the “tradition” where 1 condemned criminal is released at the time of Passover. Yet the only mention of this tradition is in the bible. Even they can not agree if it was a Roman or a Jewish tradition. What is more, no such tradition existed. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrection, what today would be known as terrorism. Only Ceaser could release a man condemned to be crucified. For Pontius Pilate to release the equivalent of a terrorist would be political suicide for him.
It is these many inaccuracies that make the bible less than reliable with regard to the life of Jesus. Now you believe it is mostly accurate if you will, I’ll wait until we find a full gospel that was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD before I start thinking about becoming a christian again.
Oh, and Timothy 1 and 2, Titus and Ephesians are strong evidence that not only has the early church tampered with the gospels, they were quite willing to invent them too. Can you spell pseudepigraphic (I hope I can).
Time for a bier, the weekend has started here in Germany.
Tschüss
Evolution isn’t random. Let it go.
If your god can create the universe, then yes, I would agree that he doesn’t need a “slow” process for “creation.” But who are you to say that he didn’t choose to use such a process? If your god created the universe, then healing amputees shouldn’t be a difficult task for him, either, but that doesn’t seem to be the business that he’s in, now does it? Would you not say that he has chosen not to heal amputees? Or are you saying that he can’t?
Guy
Not self censorship, just a humour test ;)
Barb
Huh. Interesting, isn’t it, that all cars have a common ancestor?
@527 Trinken Sie ein Bier für mich.
And many typography purists think that “Comic Sans is a useless font” … clueless they are.
Ha ha, it was me really!
Does life get better than this? Am I about to have a visit from the Brazilian Ladies Contortionism team looking for a massage?
Yes! That evil harridan simulacrum of a Christian, Barb, has reposted my comments in bold, ignored the thrust of the entire message and accused me of threatening violence!
You utter utter fuckwit. A person as stupid as you Barb has no business even breathing! And she quotes exactly what I say!
All right – begone ye blinding tears! – let me spell it quite clearly:
I do not advocate or condone any act of physical violence against any symbol, or practitioner, of religion, the most evil hoax ever perpetrated on mankind
Like all atheists, I have morals Barb, real-world morals – I am a kind and compassionate man in real life – and for you to take me seriously (Me? Seriously? Ha!) in this ludicrous threat gives merely a whole new-dimension to your stupidity, and allows me the certain thought of a day well spent.
Thank You.
I shall have to take a break. Posting here is all getting..all too much…..
Oh by the way – “reaonable man” is really me – “AnthonyK”. Sorry to confuse you, Barb!
Don’t we get fresh trolls for Friday the 13th?
We can only hope, but so far, only the old ones have shown themselves.
Barb #498 wrote:
Yes, that was my question. Thanks for getting back to it.
So it appears then that you agree that there is nothing in evolution which precludes it from being God’s method of creation. Evolution isn’t an important issue when it comes to religion: Theistic evolution is a perfectly reasonable position for a Christian to take, if one’s faith is threatened.
And yet you go on to write:
This seems to contradict what you said earlier in the same post.
If the Bible is true, then evolution is false. If A, then B.
Evolution is not false. Not B
Therefore, the Bible is not true. Not A (modus tollens)
Barb #508 wrote:
That may be because they give lip service to the reasonable possibility of theistic evolution as a means of preserving faith, but really believe that, if evolution happened, then there is no good reason to believe in God anymore.
You are turning evolution into a scientific test for God. And then personally planting yourself against the overwhelming consensus of scientific experts from multiple disciplines for the last 150 years, drawing a line, and saying “if they are right, and I am wrong — then I will renounce God.”
Fair enough. As a secular humanist, I respect that sort of approach. I don’t trust “faith” either.
Well, well! Barb will not even concede that it’s possible that she’s wrong. Awesome.
Yup, that does say it all. Yet people like her think scientists arrogant and dogmatic. Same old same old.
Unfortunately the “possibility” that she’s wrong is only true as part of the “impossibility” that she is ever in error.
It’s just another great argument for abortion.
And quoted me in bold. Heaven!
Barb #508 wrote:Again — to the person who asked me if I would lose faith in God if macro-evolution were proven true –I said no –and forgot to add that I observe that those who DO believe in evolution, often DO lose their faith in God.
Sastra 537 responded — That may be because they give lip service to the reasonable possibility of theistic evolution as a means of preserving faith, but really believe that, if evolution happened, then there is no good reason to believe in God anymore
You are turning evolution into a scientific test for God. And then personally planting yourself against the overwhelming consensus of scientific experts from multiple disciplines for the last 150 years, drawing a line, and saying “if they are right, and I am wrong — then I will renounce God.”.
I think you didn’t read closely –because I have made it clear that no matter what you all prove, I would not renounce God. You can’t disprove the existance of a higher power/supreme being. You can’t disprove the resurrection and miracles of Christ either.
Theistic evolution merely says evolution might be the way God created –and that He controlled, managed, designed the process. I don’t believe that but I have Christian friends who do. They think you all have proven evolution to be true, placing their faith in the credibility of science establishment, even though that establishment has been wrong before and is wrong now. I don’t agree with them, obviously. Seems to me that evolutionists are just as religiously doctrinaire as you think Christians are.
Barb:
*GIANT BUZZER SOUND*
Sorry, Barb. You just got fried by an Imp because you tried to use the same method to open a door that didn’t work yesterday. Guess what? It didn’t work this time, either. You’re Imp food.
We do not prove things in science in the sense that you’re using the word. You can ignore that fact a million times if you want, but you still will not change the fact.
For your records as you try to advance through the game, here is your previous attempt:
You know what will open that door? Learning.
Care to put in another 25 cents and try again?
Paul, #525
You’re right, of course. Barbie does appear to be a True Believer because she has somehow committed the most pitiful mistake anyone can make with respect to the Bible: she believes it is the word of God, not the stories of men.
As a psychological phenomenon, I find the True Believer utterly baffling. It really boggles my mind that anyone who doesn’t live in total isolation from the rest of the world can reconcile such a concept in this day and age. Just as it’s difficult to understand other forms of mental illness if you haven’t experienced them yourself, it’s impossible for me to comprehend how religious people can function with their own madness, especially since it so often seems self- and/or societally-induced.
Brain-dead Barb:
That’s an easy one – we’re only hotsile towards the likes of blabbering idiots like you, with your consistent willful ignorance of fact and evidence, ceaseless proselytizing, and absolute failure to support your opinions with anything – aside from your stupendous misunderstanding of science and repeated referrals to ancient, superstitious texts that have not seen any sort of critical revision in well over a millenium.
Do I get a gold star??
Barb:
I have people I know who believe that as well.
Barb, can you disprove my hypothesis that Odin is the one who controlled, managed, and designed the process?
Your disagreement is noted. But can you offer any evidence to backup your assertion that we’re wrong about evolution? Simply asserting that “it’s not happening today” isn’t going to cut it. Can you SHOW ME that there are no transitional features preserved in fossils? Can you SHOW ME that the process isn’t happening today? It isn’t up to me to show you. We’ve done that time and time again here. It’s up to you to demonstrate how design explains anything better than evolution does. How about we start with the Ozark cave fish? It’s a blind fish that lives its life in the dark in cave streams. Why did the designer give it eyes that don’t function, rather than giving it no eyes at all? Evolution has an explanation for this. What is your better explanation?
Barb the blathering idiot is back. She has no grasp on reality due to what she thinks she owes god. Of course, since god doesn’t exist the poor lady is simply bonkers. Good for another laugh at her. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, funny Barb, believing in imaginary deities. Why not pixies in the garden?
Hey Barb – guess what – I’m a teacher! Young minds, Barb, young minds.
BWaaaahahahahahah!
Barb #540 wrote:
I think that part of the problem I’m having is that you seem to be contradicting yourself, since you also said that
“If the stories of Jesus Christ are true, that’s evidence enough for me that evolution is not..”
You apparently also believe that, if the stories of Jesus Christ are true, that’s evidence enough for you that evolution is true, too. The stories of Jesus don’t really point in either direction.
But since it doesn’t matter what the scientists say — evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth is just as consistent with Christianity as specially created “kinds” and a 10,000 year old earth — then the theistic evolutionists haven’t placed their “faith” in science over the Bible. In your view, scientists cannot contradict the Bible at all. No matter what they say, you can accept it and keep your faith in Christ perfectly intact.
The creationism – evolution debate should be, for you, a non-issue. I wonder, then, why you think it matters.
I don’t understand what you mean by this; it doesn’t seem to follow from what you just wrote. If new evidence somehow falsified the theory of evolution, then evolutionary scientists would realize they were wrong — and change. As you point out, the scientific consensus changes over time, to correct for errors. That’s not “doctrinaire,” is it?
No, not till Satan’s fluffer quotes you in bold!
Janine could you please answer my question about Wernher von Braun. And could you please answer that because I am a lesbian, does that make me the moral equivalent of a rapist?
Just being human, Janine, makes you, me and the rapist all the same at the foot of the cross –sinners. All sin needs to be rejected at the first thought. I’d bet most anything –if I were a betting person –that you aren’t intrinsically, exclusively attracted to women without ability to be attracted to a male. and if you are, I would think there was a reason having to do with your parents or with molesters –some sin toward you by others.
Regardless, there was a time of first thought and attraction that should be resisted the same way anyone is to resist any other temptation to do wrong. It is counter-productive and against nature and perverse to have sex with same-sex friends –it is to be a taboo –same as incest, adultery, rape, pedophilia, etc. A thought to NOT entertain in the brain.
NOt that consensual sex between two adults of the same sex is the same LEVEL of violation as those which involve a non-consensual partner –of course it is not. But with God, there are no gradations of sin –the arrogant and smug law-keeper is a sinner in God’s sight, and He has harsh words for those who think of themselves as better than others.
We are all sinners –but we are supposed to agree with Him about our status as sinners, our need for justification through repentance and faith in Christ, and we are to agree with our Maker about what IS sin and what is not. The only sex sanctified by the Bible is that between a man and his wife. All the rest is wrong for us.
As for von Brahn –did he contribute at all to the foundation for NASA’s work, satellite and defense technology or not? Did he have to believe in evolution to be a scientist, doing science? NO. And that is the point of him being on such a list. Evolution is not a necessary belief for a scientist –just as Christianity is not. However, apparently, von Brahn believed in a Creator, also, to be on the list.
They just simply cannot get this one through their heads. They don’t believe we would ever throw a theory out. Even though we DO IT. They really do think we have faith in either the theory or the people. They never seem to acknowledge that we can go back and edit/redo what has been done before us if we find out that it’s fucked up.
AnthonyK:
Ah, touche…
Oh shit. Where’s Janine?
*adjusts chest-rig and looks around for cover*
This isn’t gonna be good.
Barbie,
Just as nothing we say will make you renounce your imaginary father figure, nothing you say will make us renounce our belief that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Nor will it make us change our disapproval of people like yourself who seek to impose your religious bigotry and hatred on gay members of society.
In other words, go fuck yourself…
Poor babbling Barb. Still can’t put cogent thoughts together. Here Barb, let me help. First of all, remove us from your bookmarks and forget about us. If you are so inept, you can’t do that minor task, then never hit the post button. There, you now sound a 1000% smarter. And it wasn’t that hard to do.
Sastra 547 —You apparently also believe that, if the stories of Jesus Christ are true, that’s evidence enough for you that evolution is true, too. The stories of Jesus don’t really point in either direction
Did you mean NOT true in line 3? You are confoosing the issue!
If the stories of Jesus are true, that does suggest to me that evolution is unnecessary as God’s method of creation–he didn’t need all the time that is necessary for evolution. He speaks and it happens. What is natural for God is supernatural or miraculous to us. In any case, our existance and the universe and all the “facts” of science are miraculous, awe-inspiring.
My faith in Christ is rock-solid. I believe He came, died, rose again, did miracles, holds the key to our eternity.
Whether you can prove Darwin or not is beside the point –except that it doesn’t make much sense to me in light of resurrection/miracle power.
Sastra 547 —You apparently also believe that, if the stories of Jesus Christ are true, that’s evidence enough for you that evolution is true, too. The stories of Jesus don’t really point in either direction
Did you mean NOT true in line 3? You are confoosing the issue!
If the stories of Jesus are true, that does suggest to me that evolution is unnecessary as God’s method of creation–he didn’t need all the time that is necessary for evolution. He speaks and it happens. What is natural for God is supernatural or miraculous to us. In any case, our existance and the universe and all the “facts” of science are miraculous, awe-inspiring.
My faith in Christ is rock-solid. I believe He came, died, rose again, did miracles, holds the key to our eternity.
Whether you can prove Darwin or not is beside the point –except that it doesn’t make much sense to me in light of resurrection/miracle power.
Oh, I don’t know about that. If it was revealed that all the twin studies had been faked, all the homosexual animals had been specially trained, all the “ex-gay” activists who got caught in the gay bars were really moles from the gay rights movement, and the Human Rights Campaign leaked their own version of the Wedge Document where they outlined a plan to Plunge America Into Sin, etc…
I suspect, though, that all Barb’s got is more dogma, maybe some dubious testimonials from painfully re-closeted “ex-gays”, and possibly some shady trumped up “research” from religious-right think tanks.
Barb:
Fixed it for you.
Barb,
Irrelevant conclusion
Argument ad populum mixed with Argument from Incredulity.
Irrelevant
Proof by stubbornness
You can’t disprove the existence of invisible Pink unicorns. What’s your point?
Yes, we are the ones who are indoctrinated.
But again, regrowing limbs for devout amputees shouldn’t be beyond his capabilities, either. I would guess that your assertion is that he chooses not to heal them, right?
Beastly Barb:
1. I had such a sin committed against me in my youth, yet I identify as heterosexual..
2. My closest friend in this world was not the victim of such abuse, yet she identifies as homosexual.
So, your claim to the contrary is utter bullshit, like most of the rest of the tripe you post.
And, just for added measure, go fucki yourself. (Sorry for jumping in Janine, I just couldn’t hold back on that.)
Sastra –I do find evolutionists to be religiously doctrinaire –in that they get so emotional –to the point of unnecessary hostility in defense of what I view to be their sacred cow.
Yes, science NORMALLY is willing to look at new evidence, new interpretations–but not in the case of evolution, the least tenable of all scientific theories/laws. And that’s because the atheists NEED it to prop up their unbelief.
I fail to see why the stories of Jesus speak more to God’s ability to “speak and create” than Genesis does. Honestly, you’re not making any sense with your Jesus rambling.
Isn’t it amazing how Jesus did so many miracles circa 30 CE and none of them managed to be mentioned by any contemporary historians? Even the Christians did not find it noteworthy until ~70 CE.
barb’s christianity makes baby jesus cry
I know this kind of attitude may be seen as commendable within your church community, but I assure you that everywhere else it’s reprehensible. You are basically declaring that you care more about maintaining your current beliefs than about having true beliefs. It says you don’t care about what’s true. Why should we listen to the opinions of someone who confessedly doesn’t care what’s true?
How many days in agony – for barb?
Barb #555 wrote:
No, I meant ‘true.’
I’m saying that you appear to believe that, if the stories of Jesus are true, then they are evidence for either Creationism OR evolution. They don’t really “point” or “suggest” anything strongly enough that it would make any difference to your belief in the Bible, Christianity, Christ, or God.
And that’s why I’m wondering why you think there’s any virtue in arguing against evolution. Sure, evolution “doesn’t make sense to you in light of resurrection/miracle power.” It’s not what you would expect God to use. It’s problematic for Original Sin, perhaps, and makes God a shadowy figure working “behind nature,” limiting His direct involvement and making His Works less clear and obvious. It makes huge swaths of the Bible figurative and metaphorical.
But why would that matter? You’re not concerned with whether or not anything makes sense, when it comes down to God and how God works. It’s all good. Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Creationism — you’ll be equally happy with any of them, as long as it allows you to keep your faith in God.
There’s nothing really riding on evolution for you. Why then argue that it didn’t happen? It has no more effect on your faith — and should have no more import to anyone’s belief — than whether it rained in China last week.
Heads you win, tails you win.
broken soldier –anybody can be a friend to anybody –and should be friends to all.
I do not contend that all homosexuals have had sexual experience or assault in their childhood or early years –but I do contend that there are factors that can influence sexual orientation–factors that are not genetic. I also don’t contend that all assaulted/abused children will act out their response with aberrant sexual attraction/orientation/behaviors.
I do believe that anyone can find members of their own sex attractive and crave their friendship, desiring their acceptance and approval –and enter into “feel good” experiences between them and develop a homosexual self-image as a result –or get into addictive behaviors. Addictions do alter brain structure and function.
*yawn*
Barb for plonkage. Every sentence is wrong every time. It’s boring.
broken soldier –anybody can be a friend to anybody –and should be friends to all.
I do not contend that all homosexuals have had sexual experience or assault in their childhood or early years –but I do contend that there are factors that can influence sexual orientation–factors that are not genetic. I also don’t contend that all assaulted/abused children will act out their response with aberrant sexual attraction/orientation/behaviors.
I do believe that anyone can find members of their own sex attractive and crave their friendship, desiring their acceptance and approval –and enter into “feel good” experiences between them and develop a homosexual self-image as a result –or get into addictive behaviors. Addictions do alter brain structure and function.
She mocks god and the saviour with every action and every thought. She is stupid, where god made her clever; she is ignorant, where god gave her education; she is prideful, where Jeseus showed her humility;she is sinfulf, feep down, blackened in sin, and she shall burn in hell…
On the lighter side, she’s made some atheists very happy!
Sastra I’m saying that you appear to believe that, if the stories of Jesus are true, then they are evidence for either Creationism OR evolution.
Hardly. I didn’t say that or imply it. The stories of JEsus are evidence to interpret in favor of God’s ability to create without evolution as the method. HOwever, if you ever COULD prove evolution were true, I would still believe there was a God who did it –even though the power demonstrated in the New Testament is evidence against its being necessary for God to create by slow evolution.
That is funny, Barb the Bigot. Evolution actually had nothing to do with my being an atheist. Do you have any more screwball assertions that we can devastate?
Doctrinaire and emotional are orthogonal descriptions. Perhaps they are emotional to the point of hostility because you do not even critically evaluate your own sources before puking old, already answered “problems with evolution” onto their threads.
Pure bullshit. There has been 150 years of steady new evidence supporting evolution. There has been no evidence supporting any challenges, even from the Dishonesty Institute which has evolution denial as one of it’s biggest issues. Calling evolution the least tenable of scientific theories is purely an emotional assertion, not backed by any body of evidence.
As an atheist, I do not need evolution to prop up my unbelief. If tomorrow I found out there was an Illuminati conspiracy since the days of Darwin/Wallace to trick people into believing evolution, and there was evidence that conclusively disproved evolution, I’d simply stop believing in evolution. I still would have no reason to believe in Yahweh, much like pre-electricity America felt no need to substitute Thor to explain thunder. Gaps in our knowledge don’t mean we have to fill in God, it just means we haven’t discovered everything yet. Could there be a God there? Sure. But we have no reason to posit one, as of yet. It offers no explanatory power.
On the other side of the coin, more and more religion seems to need evolution-denial to prop up their belief. It really is too bad for them they are taking that path. Because, with as hard as they are “teaching the controversy”, more kids are going to look at what all the fuss is about. Kids are curious. I know what broke me out of unthinking religious acceptance was a kneejerk apologetics class at church that was full of logical fallacies and bad sources. Religion will last a lot longer if they start taking more of a Deistic tack, and just let science do what it does while using God to explain the underlying substrate. Because the more scientific assertions religion makes, the easier it is to provide strong evidence that it is wrong.
The crucifixion was done in your name.
Yet you spit on the wounds of Christ.
Why, Barb, why?
Were your ancestors in the crowd, screaming for Barabbas?
Why do you mock him now?
Barb #562 wrote:
I don’t think that getting “emotional” indicates being “religiously doctrinaire.” People get emotional for all kinds of things, and hostile even when they’re right. You can’t figure out who’s correct on an issue just by looking at style. If that were so, the gooney-looney smiling New Ager bliss-ninnies would win everything hands down ;)
Being ‘religiously doctrinaire’ usually means being unwilling to change under any circumstances — and yet most evolutionists can come up with things which would falsify evolution. They may think it’s unlikely, but they can think of them.
I don’t know, but I’m going to guess that there’s nothing you can think of which would falsify the existence of God. By that I mean, which would persuade you that God doesn’t exist, and never has existed, and all the things you thought pointed to God have other, better, explanations. Religious doctrinaire.
So evolutionists can change – but are they likely? At this point, it would be very difficult. I don’t think you understand how thoroughly the explanation is embedded in so much of modern science, and how many of its predictions have generated other predictions, across a wide spectrum of disciplines.
Susan Haack once described science as like filling in a crossword puzzle. You use pencil. When you get a square where every word fits with every other word, you ink in that spot. You’re not going to get a single word which is completely wrong in a square which is otherwise complete in every direction. You may erase ink, but not often.
Evolution is a square that has been filled in so well that you can’t just ‘erase’ it without erasing most of modern science.
God, you can take right out of the puzzle. It answers no clues, resolves no questions in science. You can write it across the top in chalk, going up, down, backwards, however you want. It doesn’t effect anything underneath. It’s decoration.
Most people who accept evolution also believe in God. They write God over the top in fancy chalk letters, call it the background, and are happy. So evolution is not a theory that atheists use to “prop up their unbelief.” We just think that, if God did exist, it would be embedded in the puzzle.
Coming to post here was the greatest sin you have ever comitted.
Turn back to Christ.
Stop his torture.
Stop posting.
And where is your PROOF, Barb? You have none – merely a “feeling” that, because you want so desperately for your beliefs to be true, they MUST be true.
It is my sincere hope that you live to see your children reject that which you hold most dear. I hope they break your heart, Barb. It’s the only fitting end for someone as hateful as you.
Where’s your proof? –not evidence –PROOF!
And where is your PROOF, Barb? You have none – merely a “feeling” that, because you want so desperately for your beliefs to be true, they MUST be true.
It is my sincere hope that you live to see your children reject that which you hold most dear. I hope they break your heart, Barb. It’s the only fitting end for someone as hateful as you.
Two trolls seem to lurk on this blog without adding anything of worth to the debate. I guess facilis also rates a mention – walton comes out with something sensible now and then.
Simon is one, Barb is the other toxic influence. She keeps coming around, proud in her ignorance and, defiant in the face of overwhelming evidence, she claims that nothing can change her faith.
Barb – you are a closed minded bigot. Even a a lobotomy would not go deep enough to remove teh stoopid.
Barb #573 wrote:
I don’t see much difference between what you’re saying, and what I said. As far as you’re concerned, if the stories of Jesus are true, then that doesn’t say anything about whether evolution is true or not.
Sure, God could have used magic, like the miracles in the NT. Or God could have used nature. Or God could have used extra-terrestrials from another dimension with different laws of physics.
But you’d know that without reading the New Testament at all. The pre-set conclusion is that God did it, no matter what. You don’t care how. You shouldn’t care how.
So I don’t see why evolution matters to you. It matters to theistic evolutionists because they couldn’t believe in a God that contradicts well-established tenets of modern science. It matters to atheists because it’s a well-established tenet of modern science.
But you’d be just as happy to believe in God whether it contradicted modern science or not. God isn’t your conclusion. It’s where you start out, and where you stay, come hell, high water, or the theory of evolution.
So why involve yourself in a difficult argument in a field where you have no real expertise, and take a stance against the overwhelming consensus of people with genuine expertise — if absolutely nothing is riding on this for you at all?
Evidence? We will look at it. Happily.
SHOW US SOME.
For the love…
Barb, if you want us to believe anything you say, then cite the peer reviewed primary scientific literature. Anything other than that, especially your fictional bible, or your lying word, won’t cut the mustard.
Face it, people. She is just a hateful person who can’t stand the fact that most of us think her belief is a fairy tale.
I’m content NOT to go to any Christian blogs and antagonize the regular readers there. But she is compelled to come to an atheist blog (see the masthead, Barb) and antagonize the regular readers here. Why is that?
@Kel
I’ve taken a good deal of biology actually and I understand the principles and the science underlying it.(I remember once finding a dusty copy of the origins of species on my bookshelf and reading it.) I used to thin k that all the biologists believed in evolution and my biology teacher and textbooks taught it so it must be a fact (Yes I was a very gullible student). But recently seeing Ben Stein’s Expelled and hearing that hundreds of scientists are signing a petition saying that they are skeptical of evolution and how scientists are being threatened for critiquing Darwinism, has weakened my position on the issue somewhat.
I leave the biologists to debate the controversy.
brokenSoldier, OM – If it would help I can award you a Brass Star ?
Facilis,
I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.
P.S. I answered (again) your question about morality in #445. If you have critiques feel free to voice them, but do not ask me the same question a third time.
Facillis the Fool – Didn’t you get the troll memo? Today is Friday the 13th, atheists only want fresh trolls today – and you toady smell like last months carcass.
facilis wrote:
So, which do you think is true: that biologists are simply mistaken, or they’re being willfully dishonest about their findings (as Ben ‘Assclown’ Stein’s
ExpelledExcrement implies) and it’s a global conspiracy where ‘honest’ creationists are being shunned for the beliefs (rather than their demonstrated incompetence)?If it’s the latter, how do you explain Ken Miller and all the other theistic evolutionists? Why would your fellow Christians be lying?
Facilis #586 wrote:
I think others are going to jump in here, but I’d be skeptical about the “hundreds of scientists” on that list. My understanding is that very few of them are evolutionary biologists — and the statement itself is vague enough that someone could sign it and still accept basic evolution. There’s not really a controversy in biology, among scientists.
I went to a skeptic conference once where one of the speakers (Bob Park?) said something to the effect that “you can’t find any belief so bizarre, so strange, or so implausible that you can’t find a PhD scientist willing to endorse it anyway.” He was talking at the time about something like extra-terrestrial building the pyramids. People are people, and some very smart people can believe some very weird things.
Even if there were “hundreds” of scientists who were “skeptical” of evolution, that’s only a drop in the bucket compared to the sheer number of scientists. And if they are not experts in the field — if they are chemists or lab radiologists or (shudder) engineers — then their ‘dissent from Darwin’ means no more than the dissent coming from hair dressers, computer programmers, and second-rate actors.
Facilis you are a fucking liar.
Liar, liar, mind’s on fire.
If there’s one thing worse than a lying, boring, stupid, boring, Pharyngula troll – it’s you.
And I meant to say “boring” twice.
And take that thumb out of your mouth! You’re a big boy now!
Because the Jebus flavor goddists are commanded to proselytize. Barb is giving us the “good news” about Jebus and, as a special added attraction, explaining to a bunch of evilutionists why evilution must be wrong.
Barb, like many Jebus flavor goddists, doesn’t realize that interruption marketing (aka witnessing) will not work. Her attitude is basically “You need to hear this because I need to say it.” Her napalm evangelism is really annoying but she doesn’t care. She thinks she wants to tell us how to escape going to Hell even if she has to shove Jebus down our throats. She doesn’t care that just because she needs to say it does not mean that we want or need to hear it. It’s all about HER and HER needs, not about us, our concerns and interests, or our feelings on the subject. She displays a quite immodest lack of concern for anyone else but herself.
If we weren’t so sick and tired of Barb, it might actually be funny to count the number of sins she has committed here since she started trolling. She’s hell bound for sure.
Facilis wrote:
Facilis, please watch this video:
List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?
Is she any worse than “annoying”? – I mean most jebus freaks don’t come here, so what’s with her?
I tend to see her as an aspect of evil. I mean I know I’m way exaggerating here but there is something…uggh.
I don’t really care – it just gives me an opportunity to attack everything which her form of religion represents.
And, to be honest, I do enjoy it.
I suspect however that she’s going for a banning. That way she doesn’t have to admit it was a mistake coming here in the first place, so she can imagine that she “won”. I mean, Jesus told her to post here in the first place and it’s inconceivable that He would get it wrong.
So does she fuck off of her own accord, or do we ask PZ to end it now?
Barb, Facilis, Simon, and other theists/creationists come here because they can tell it’s a forum where dissent is allowed, and there are people in the comments section who either want to have a discussion with them, or try out their arguments and explanations on them — and they can do the same. It’s not like they broke into a private party.
I don’t understand why anyone would get heavily involved in a discussion they really, truly found distressing, upsetting, and annoying. I secretly suspect it’s a mild kind of annoyance coupled with SIWOTI syndrome, and you’re all actually having fun.
Facilis and Barb arn’t much different theologically than most people we encounter in real life, and more reasonable and articulate than many: religion and science seldom come up in ordinary trips to the store or casual work environments. Probably a damn good thing, too.
Delta Whiskey #595:
Aha! I was trying to figure out where I saw that video, so I could link for facilis, but I gave up. Thanks!
Patricia wrote:
I keep missing her, which is a shame ’cause I love sinking the boot in to her stupid ass. We’ve proved on a couple of threads how piss-poor a Christian (in terms of biblical knowledge and understanding) she is.
And that’s coming from me, who has absolutely zero Bertie Wooster-esque medals for scriptural knowledge…
No? Are you sure….
AnthonyK, it’s Owlmirror and Patricia that can quote chapter and verse. Owlmirror in the original Aramic/Hebrew. Not to say others of us might know a verse here or there.
Sastra,
I agree, the blog is a great place for both parties to hone argument.
Its just the lack of competition that sux. Barb is like shooting rubber fish in a barrel. It doesn’t matter how many barrels you use, the same lifeless fish keeps floating to the surface.
She rarely even concedes an argument, and only then to twist it in some predictable way to support her argument or to look like she is being reasonable. She is only good for novice atheists – maybe we could use her like trainer wheels? ;)
I think it great the blog is so open. The commenters are great and their skills diverse, its just the quality of the trolls is so poor. Maybe that is intrinsic to their warped and fundamentally flawed “world-view”.
Wowbagger – Oh shame on me! I’m a huge Wodehouse fan, and I’ve actually forgotten the number of medals Bertie won.
No, I meant more the medals bit…though whether it is religious is up for argument….
I have a passing knowledge of stuff a picked up during my brief flirtation with church attendance – my mother isn’t really a Christian but went anyway; she was even a Sunday School teacher for a while – I went until I was about 12 and got sick of wasting my Sunday mornings being bored and weary itchy church pants*.
Most of what I throw out at teh Christians here is what I’ve gleaned from other posters, or by virtue of having bookmarked the SAB for quick reference.
*No, not really. It’s just one of my favourite Homerisms.
…or have you not come to terms with it yet?
Why thank you Nerd. ;)
I think the Pharyngula Bible Quotin’ Team is one of the best on the innertubes. Owl Mirror is incredible.
Oh Patricia, where’s the Bible story about God smighting all those kids (with a bear?) for calling the preacher man “baldy”? I think it’s the only funny story in the Bible. Shame about the ending, though.
Mind you, they would have died by now anyway..and I suppose “killed by bear” does have class.
Patricia,
IIRC, Bertie only won the one, but I can’t guarantee that. Still, it wouldn’t be very Bertie-ish to have achieved much more than that.
My only medals are in pistol shooting, tenpin bowling and cricket.
Yes but…I meant…oh, never mind.
Good idea, he has a cricket bat, a bowling ball, and a gun. It would have looked like a car accident. ;-)
Patricia, Right Ho, Jeeves, by P. G. Wodehouse:
These days, there’s the Internet, we can all cheat :)
Or, possibly, the weapons in a Circus who-dun-it….
2 Kings 2:24 Two she bears “tare” 42 children.
Aww, gawd is love.
John Morales – ONE! Now I am stunned.
Just like that Bertie to win one prize and slide through the rest of life on it. And of course Right Ho, Jeeves isn’t in my copy of The Most of P. G. Wodehouse, darn it.
One…
Jeeves, in the drawing room, with the ice pick.
The best of the Jeeves books is “Joy in the Morning” or “Jeeves in the Morning” US, sez I.
I thought it was Facilis in the chapel with his reason and logic. :-)
So, he was unarmed then?
That’s SO ADORABLE! It’s not often adults confess to still believing fairy tales! Most people eventually realize Santa Claus isn’t real, but for some strange reason, you seem to believe Jesus “died, rose again, did miracles”. Your superhero on a stick sounds like a fuckin’ Bronze Age David Blaine…
Wowbagger – I had a go at pistol shooting myself. Here in Oregon you have to prove competence with a weapon to qualify for a concealed hand gun permit. I won the award for Ladies Night Shooting.
Which only means that my instructor and class mates won’t break into my house at night. *snerk!*
Posted by: Barb | March 13, 2009 5:05 PM
Wrong. Anybody could be a friend to anybody, but people with bigoted and hateful presuppositions of specific classes of people based purely on dogmatic requirement will never be friends of mine. Regardless. And no such person (this means you) is deserving of either politeness or compassion, since you are loathe to provide it to anyone who does not share your narrow view of the world.
Utter nonsense – you defaulted right to the abuse accusation – aimed at Janine’s parents no less – as a reason for orientation. It simply shows the obtuse nature of your ill-informed mind, and the impenetrable wall you have defending your stone age-inclined brain from any sort of rational or compassionate thought. Compassion, BTW, comes from within, not from your hateful and immoral god or the book that was written – by quite fallible and prejudiced humans – in that god’s name.
It matters not what you contend after getting called out on your bullshit. You have made your opinions about homosexuals very clear, and they are abhorrent and utterly backwards in every way. (Need I remind you, you have already placed homosexuals on par with rapists, you evil sack of pious shit.
Here you go again with your fundamentally stupid bigotry. Homosexual individuals are neither mentally ill or victims of any sort of addiction, and your suggestion of such proves that you have no purview on the world save what your mind-controlling, misogynist god allows you to maintain. And it takes quite a mountain of both arrogance and ignorance to think that while you can enjoy a relationship filled with care and love with another human, any such relationship between individuals of the same sex must – by default – be merely a “feel-good experience” to be viewed as some sort of blight on society. I’m absolutely positive that gay men and lesbians all around this country are at this very moment engaged in relationships that are far more enriching, loving, and sustainable than any you will ever have, due to the simple fact that your mind and heart begins every single evaluation of another human being from the starting blocks of your painfully narrow-minded and presumptuous religious prejudice. I almost feel sorry for you, but I would have to care about you first, which I can’t say that I do. And if there were a hell – which there is not – it would most certainly be a welcome respite when compared to being subjected to the whims of either you or a god as malignant and cruel as yours.
Again, go fuck yourself.
I concede your point. Great riposte.
AnthonyK – And just what do you have against The Empress of Blandings? *snort*
I said I was not passing judgement. PZ Myers has far more expertise in biology than me , but then so does Michael Behe. I don’t know who is right.As to Expelled I think what Ben Stein was saying is that scientists would be fired and blacklisted for supporting ID. Perhaps some want to support ID but keep shut because they fear for their jobs.
Congratulations! Bag many?
And talking of grunting and squeeling…
How about this. Behe vs. the entire biological scientific community.
That’s the correct comparison.
Not just PZ.
I can tell you who isn’t right…in so many ways; important ways.
How many ways does it need to be spelt out for you that Expelled is nothing but a piece of propaganda, and there is no scientific controversy over intelligent design? We know you are impervious to actually listening to anyone here, but seriously it’s a fucking pitiful piece of propaganda that even Fox fucking News criticised.
Facilis the Fallacious Fool. Why do you keep showing your ignorance? You do a great job of showing your foolishness. Look at the real facts outside of the movie. Look at those who have been oppressed due to being evolutionists in areas opposed to evolution, and then compare the real facts to those who claim victimization due to being creationists in science. The stories are far, far different.
Then you need to look at the real facts of ID not being a science. One of the main problems is that god cannot the cause of or result of any observation in science. So both ID and creationism fail this test. Science and religion divorced a couple of centuries ago, and science will never go back. Why? Religion is static, and does not change. Science changes as the evidence changes. Science works bitches. Religion fails.
Wrong again. you bought into the Stein world of bullshit.
However, the departments will be critical of scientists who’s methods start to deviate from what is actually science. As you would hope they would.
Well maybe not you.
facilis, again I implore you to read Ken Miller (a believer and microbiologist) and watch the documentaries – A War On Science and Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial. Make sure to see Judgement Day, it won a peabody award. While on the other hand Expelled as a 0% rating among top critics on Rotten Tomatoes and is regarded as one of the worst documentaries of all time.
Wait a minute, Bullshit Barb actually said
That is quite frankly horse shit. It cheapens and demeans friendship. Because I hold another woman’s hand while she grieves, or hug my lesbian friends with joy on greeting them doesn’t make either me or them think I’m a lesbian. You are one sick excuse for a decent person Barb.
Scientific American doesn’t think much of Expelled.
Just about the only canard that Barb hasn’t given about homosexuals is saying explicitly that it’s a choice. Of course, I may have missed that post.
AnthonyK – Bag many?
No, the bags were already that way. Haw! Ha!
Fixed it for you Patricia.
I wonder how long it will be until Expelled is viewed in the same light as Reefer Madness? With the perpetual threat of religious ideology destroying science, probably never.
Anthony,
Are you suggesting that our Patricia is a bag lady?
According to the wonderful programme QI, before the Oscar Wilde trial it was very common for young men in England, even in uniform, to walk around arm in arm, as they still do in many countries. After the trial – never.
Oh and Barb – a lesbian? Is that why she comes here?
A bag lady? I think she’s an egg lady.
*insert cute emoticom, being cute, cutely*
Tis Himself – AnthonyK is digging deeper into the do-doo all the time… he called me granny just the other night.
Little does he know I’m secretly drilling The Pullet Patrol, and when he least expects it they’ll swoop in with peckers …er, I mean beaks at the ready to give him a good chastising.
Ovum my dead body!
Ovum my dead body!
That is seriously funny! Well said. ;)
facilis,
Since you’re an expert on Expelled, perhaps you can tell us what you think of all the scientific evidence they presented in support of ID. You don’t need to go into detail, just a basic overview of the evidence will do.
Not that the girls will let it get their wattles in an uproar.
@647: Cruel, Wowbagger, cruel.
I love it.
Barb (#498)
Yes, because the irrational beliefs based on ignorance and lack of imagination held by unqualified casual observers get stronger when they educate themselves honestly about a particular subject.
(#508)
Yes, because after all that metaphorical talk about doorknobs and knocking, he really meant the stuff about the knives. No metaphors there, no ma’am. Real knives! Fear them! WoooOOOooooOOooo.
(#515)
Well, of course, since they had no other dating system on which to rely until someone brilliantly decided to start counting years from Christ’s birth! And even if they did, you could never, ever, translate their dates into ones for our calendar. Ever.
Gosh, it’s so nice that we have much to agree on, but we must be careful not to let this develop into too deep of a friendship. We might unwittingly plunge ourselves into lesbianism!
Josh (#550)
No, no, they believe it sometimes. And then criticize science for being “unreliable” because you can always just toss out or revise what doesn’t work.
Patricia It cheapens and demeans friendship. Because I hold another woman’s hand while she grieves, or hug my lesbian friends with joy on greeting them doesn’t make either me or them think I’m a lesbian. You are one sick excuse for a decent person Barb
I didn’t say, imply, or think that because you would hold a grieving woman’s hand or embrace a lesbian –you being a woman–that means you are lesbian or that anyone observing would think that of you.
what cheapens and demeans same-sex friendship is sexualizing it. That is a line that should never be crossed. It’s possible for anyone to “just not go there” mentally or physically –just like it’s possible to resist pedophilia, incest, adultery, rape, lying, stealing, hating, murdering, scorning others, etc. etc. –though many people feel irresistably compelled toward these actions. How is homosexuality any different? They feel compelled to enter into same-sex relations the same way other people feel compelled to do other things –and the compulsion starts in the mind and the addiction grows with indulgence. The issue is definition of right and wrong. For millenia, homosexuality has been considered as wrong as these other things I listed –why is it suddenly the new civil right, the latest cause celebre? Because we are in the last days when men will call good evil, and evil, good.
Only one sexual relationship is God-created by design, the male-female marital unit of consenting adults. Everything else is forbidden –and for good common sense reasons. It is by normal marriage that we propagate the human race –it is good for us to experience family from loving marriage, parenthood and grandparenting. Ideally, it matures us to care for the next generation as a mother or father. It is the family created by such unions that forms the bases of society and community. A healthy, functional family with intact parents is the best mental health unit, a bulwark against poverty, and a comfort in old age. Ideally, the family has the most influence on civilizing the next generation –and both the mother and father have their unique supportive roles to play.
God’s love includes teaching us how to live and how not to live for our optimum benefit.
Of course, Paul speaks of the benefits of singleness for the sake of ministry –but he is talking about celibate singleness. He also says much about the roles of husbands and wives and writes of the wrong of same-sex lust and activity.
Homosexuality is one of the only sins labeled as such in both testaments which our culture is trying to call good, and make legitimate, a civil right, by propaganda and law.
As opposed to the sins of eating pork, shellfish, or meats with gravy and or cheeses?
Thank you for identifying one of the reasons Christianity has been branded as an intolerant hateful, not-based-in-reality religion.
Barb, they have found through study of a particular prime ape that offspring with a gay uncle were better off because the uncle wasn’t spending time raising it’s own children and focused more on it’s relatives. Species survive perfectly well with homosexual creatures and it can even constitute an advantage. Pull your head out of God’s anus and actually see the world for what it is.
Barb, why does God hate all the things that you hate? Coincidence, or do you just like being a judgemental whore?
deatkin –your hormonal levels acting upon the fetus during pregnancy determining homosexuality –that’s just one theory. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. You think they can go back in a homosexual’s fetal history and determine that he had some abnormality in hormone experience in the womb? What’s the pedophile’s excuse?
wait
What?
Barb, you are so fucking deluded. Comparing pedophiles to homosexuals is beyond idiocy. It’s deep seated stupidity on a level that is hard to describe.
Ahh, the notion of free will. Too bad that God didn’t give (other) animals free will, only humans. And homosexuality permeates all through the animal kingdom. If one can write off homosexuality in humans as an act of free will, how does that translate to swans?
Kel @656
When viewing the sociopathic god-meme as a collective projection of the host society, xianity makes us ALL look pretty ugly. this god construct, when athropomorphised as most theists do, is not the sort of person you would boast as having for a friend.
Thankfully humanity is slowly turning towards building its own ideal for acceptable behaviour – and none of it requires the burning of witches or some old dude in the sky.
I saw a survey yesterday using fMRI to determine that theists see god/jesus as just another guy (stored in the friends part of memory). People in the Maker community often say “What would McGuyver do?”. It just chuffs me to think that god and richard dean anderson get equal billing in some theists minds :)
Barb babbled:
Once again, Barb’s scriptural knowledge falls short – God’s perfectly okay with incest, as demonstrated by Lot and his daughters, amongst others. Why must you keep illustrating for us how uneducated you are in your own religion, Barb? If you had any relevant points you’d have undermined them completely.
As for pedophilia, rape, stealing and murdering – how does that compare to homosexuality? All of those things do not involve acts between consenting adults – what part of that don’t you understand? I’ll write it again acts between consenting adults is not the same – or even similar to – pedophilia, rape, stealing and murdering.
Do you get it?
As for adultery, lying, hating and scorning others; that happens to the religious and non-religious alike – as you’re demonstrating to us right now, Barb. You’re lying to yourself, and hating and scorning homosexuals with every word you type.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on adultery, though.
If more people took that question on board, the world would be a far better place for it. Instead they ask “what would Jesus do?” and instead of getting a group of “disciples” to wander around the desert with they abstain from anything that’s fun.
I have known people like Barb who have gone on similar anti-gay power trips. Could it be that her husband has been spending too much ‘alone time’ with their son at night? Or maybe Barb has been getting weird vaginal infections from toilet seats that she and her husband just can’t explain? (Hey, shit happens, right Barb?) As long as Barb has faith that these things are possible and in no way represent warning signs, then from Barb’s point of view, everything can and should be blamed on teh gayz. How does she know? Because her husband told her so. Isn’t that right, Barb the Bigot?
Barb (#652)
Because it harms no one. Even if you believe it’s a sin, it still has no unwilling victims. This sets it apart from everything else on your list, and this is why honestly moral people cannot condemn others for it even if they think it’s a choice or it’s disgusting or whatever.
Funny how we’re always in the last days, yet we never quiiiite reach the end.
Even to the point of destroying the earth by overpopulating it? But I guess you get a built-in “get out of paradox” card with the endtimes rapture bullshit, eh? (In fact, it lets you off the hook for righting any of the things wrong in the world outside of trying to sell people on the Jesus babble so they’ll be “saved.”)
So gay parents can’t raise well adjusted straight kids? Bullshit. Kids need loving, attentive parents, not loving, attentive, heterosexual parents.
How the fuck is your vision of society/community in any way desireable? It makes me want to vomit all over my keyboard. I guess my parents not being straight warped me.
We don’t need god for that. In fact, god, being a tool of thought control, impedes us in that goal. And your preaching of his “loving” nature is showing us, yet again, what an unworthy asshole of an idea he is. You could almost write a book on how not to convert people.
@Kel
Do you believe in free will?
Holy shit! How is anyone supposed to drink from this firehose of commentary??
Turn my back for one afternoon…
I have to thank the likes of Barb for exposing me to this strange illness that is religion,and to let me witness first-hand what it does to the brains of the affected.
free will is an illusion. Our behaviour is dictated by genes, memes and experience. We don’t act on behaviour, our brain fires off neurons in patterns that translate to behaviour. I don’t choose, my behaviour is dictated by my brain chemistry and that gives me the illusion of free will… of course saying this is one thing, but this has been experimentally verified where they’ve seen brain activity that a decision has been made before the person has “made” their decision.
Of course, that is what happens when we base our understanding of the universe on evidence as opposed to wishful thinking.
What does “free will” even mean?
I will test free will here and now: I will for my hair to grow, instantaneously, to be identical to that of the guy who plays Sam Tyler in the US version of Life on Mars…now!
Nope, didn’t happen. Therefore, I don’t have free will. Simple as that.
Introducing free will into a discussion about sexuality.
That’s a good one
*The Matrix screeches to a halt* You are the One!
I love how little questions like that can cause the whole program (see post title) to come crashing down. Happy Pi Day and Happy Monkey!
The One what?
A. Noyd @#664 was the one closest to the exact Pi Time (3.14,1:59)
Banal Barb blurted:
Barb, blessed with the wisdom and knowledge lent to her from her ever loving God, is sure that my homosexuality is because of my parents or that I was molested. Here is my reality, my parents did their marriage within the traditional gender norms. There is no need to go into details.
I was never molested by parents, family members, friends or strangers. And I will further add, I don’t hate men. In fact, there are men that I have been attracted to and I am sure I will meet more that I find attractive. But it is not the same as I feel towards some women. So it goes.
I am insulted that you think that I must have been abused. And this abuse made me act, in your eyes, as a sinner. Your view of humanity is so flat, you cannot and will not see the complexities that that is life.
I can never understand the argument that such and such action is against nature. What does that even mean? Also, that is funny coming from someone who has no respect for nature. Also, I do not accept that what consenting adults do with each other is wrong.
Here is where you back from responsibility for what you believe and how you act on it. Even a person of diminished mental capacity like you can see that there is graduations in how wrong a person is acting. But is matters not better your ever loving tyrant cannot see the difference.
And a funny thing here, you are nothing but smug and arrogant. And you do think you are better than me. Otherwise, why do you keep coming here to inform us that we are sinner.
Typical of you, you skip over his past career and the reason why the Americans forgave his crimes as a Nazi. While you are ignoring this fact, most other people are aware of my point. It is just more proof of your utter foolishness. It is nice that you see a Nazi as a hero for your cause. You can have him.
I will end with this. Barb, you are a moral monster. You are a bigot who use your religion to justify your hatreds. You also use it to justify not having empathy for other people who are not like you. And you use it to justify not having to understand what other people have to say.
I have seen the results of your type of love for your children who decide to to be like you. I have seen the children tossed out onto the streets by people like you.
Do not take what I will say here as a statement from most of the people on this blog, I can not and will not speak for them. But I hate you Barb. I hate your stupidity. I hate your ignorance. I hate your ideas about how people should be. I hate how you use your belief in god to justify your hatreds. I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate you.
If we were in the same neighborhood, I would not do a thing to harm you. But i would not do a thing to acknowledge you. You would be an irritating thing that I would avoid at all cost.
Barb, you support truly harmful actions. You are merely here to testify. You show off your ignorance and hatreds as if they were righteous. There is no common ground to be had between you and me. And this is not because I embrace my atheism as if it were a religion. It is because you are inhuman.
I am done with you Barb.
@ Barb #652:
Untrue. Take the ancient greeks for example. It’s merely the evil Johnny-come-lately monotheistic religions like yours which have turned love into a crime.
And as nearly always turns out to be the case with hate-filled ignoramus Jesus-freaks like Barb, she’s revealed herself to be really a Paulian and not a Christian at all.
PS #573 etc:
No, they’re not. They’re just stories (partly plagiarised ones at that, like those in the rest of the book). Not only don’t the Roman documents support the supposedly noticeable miracles (eg the death scene earthquake and massive influx of zombies!), but there was never a convincing enough Messiah around then as far as the Jews of the time were concerned either. Christianity is based on ideas stolen from foreigners and a Jesus character was retro-fitted.
If Jesus, then how come there are still Judaism and Jews …
@Ben #585: I’m content NOT to go to any Christian blogs and antagonize the regular readers there. But she is compelled to come to an atheist blog (see the masthead, Barb) and antagonize the regular readers here. Why is that?
I’ve found that if you ask them that question, you rarely get an answer, and never a direct one. In fact, it seems to be the quickest way to get rid of them – just keep asking them, over and over, “Why are you here?”
I think there are a number of reasons why Christian trolls frequent atheist and science blogs. The first reason, easiest to understand, is that through trying to convince us, they’re attempting to convince themselves, so that they can fend off for a while longer the ever-present doubt that threatens to overtake them.
The second reason is that it feeds their martyrdom complex. Jesus set it up for them: “Blessed are you when men curse you for my sake”, or something of the sort. When we “abuse” them (or when the perceive us as doing so), they think they’re getting Brownie points with Jebus. He’s going to give them an extra special reward when they get to heaven.
Thirdly (and this is closely related to #2): The vast majority are suffering from morbidly low self-esteem. I think they court the abuse because they believe they deserve it; I think many even get off on it. There’s something erotic and, frankly, unsavory going on. It’s reminiscent of someone who enjoys being beaten, and comes to equate it with love.
Having said this, and acknowledging that they’re broken human beings – I can’t bring myself to feel compassion for them. They’ve crossed a line; they’re perfectly happy to see everyone who has ever lived – including their own children – being roasted alive for all of eternity, so that they can enjoy the ontological security blanket – the warm, fuzzy feeling of being loved by God – for a few brief decades while alive. I almost never pull a Godwin, but I make an exception for fundies. They’re worse than Nazis – and I say this as a Jew. The Nazis merely wanted to kill us; they didn’t give a damn about what happened to us afterward. These people actually look forward to the impending damnation of billions of their human siblings; they think permission to become cosmic voyeurs will be part of their heavenly reward. They eagerly anticipate standing around on a mezzanine in heaven, chugging beers with Jesus and W, peering down into the depths of hell, watching the rest of us being tortured unimaginably for all of eternity. Again, they positively get off on it – and there are millions of them.
Fundies are utter garbage – the worst of the worst.
On this note I think I’ll play Civ IV for a while.
There is the occasional sliver of self-knowledge in barb’s prissy sex-rant, and this is one.
That’s you, Barf, that is. Foot of the cross – but what’s this – you’re keeping him up there – you won’t let hims down – you, you wanted him crucified, didn’t you?
Every time you post here, He has to die again, in humiliation and agony, the man/god you say you love. Every time you feel uncomfortable with you own sexuality – lesbian, right? – you come here to listen to people who are OK with what they are, who don’t the promise of presents from Santa Claus to keep them good.
You are a traitor to Christ, you are blind to reality, you are judgemental, you are ignorant. You are to Christainity what abortion is to rape – the sad consequences of a horrible idea.
@Jeff #676
Those are good points, and I truly hope you’re right about the first one. I WANT them to have doubts. Maybe they’ll accept reality someday. Someone like Barb? I think the chances are slim.
Barb:
Perhaps you should go relate that same idiotic bullshit to the numerous homosexual couples in the world that are raising children that will grow up to be much better off than any children that come out of your backwards, hateful, prejudiced household. You have a uniquely fucked up concept of the word love, and it is clear from your insipid words that you’ll never know it truly, even if it smacks you in the face.
It is truly sad that you’ll live your life under the ignorant veil of your petty faith in an ancient, obsolete entity that forces such ignorance on people such as yourself. But while it is sad, you have imminently proven that you richly deserve your fate – which will most certainly not be the fairly tale you have convinced yourself of. Instead you will realize, once your end is near, that you have wasted your life with your bigotry and hatred, and will have nothing to show for it.
Janine:
All others aside, you most certainly did speak for me as well. There is not a word in that paragraph that I disagree with, and I couldn’t have said it any better.
@ Barb #652:
Such as not being overrun with sinful slugs?
So all those hermaphrodites and asexual reproducers out there had nothing to do with creation by your god but some other god or evolved instead? Far simpler to accept that the whole kit and kaboodle evolved rather than invent that fictional god of yours just for one set of restrictive sex practices.
@ Barb #652:
If you were genuinely a bible-believer then you’d also have to recognise that those people doing the bad™ things might easily be the ones acting under the explicit direction of your (fictional) god.
One of the many things revealed about your evil god in the bible is that it doesn’t approve of free will. When the god wants to, it summarily overrides what people would otherwise do. Most tellingly, that god is only shown (Exodus 7) as able to do that (ie forcibly rather than via coercive and abusive persuasion) in the direction of causing them to be bad not good – one of the numerous hints that it is indeed an evil god, not a good one.
Of course, being the stupid, ignorant and immoral person that you are, Barb, you won’t have been able to recognise that from the bible by yourself. You’re bound to be a dishonest bible cherry-picker, like all the rest of your ilk.
Barb has yet to demonstrate how Homosexuality and pedophilia, incest and rape are equal.
Beyond first establishing that all of her other blatant bullshit means nothing other than a vehicle for her to demonstrate her incredibly ignorant and hateful view of the world.
All fantasies are equal, but some are more evil than others.
Janine, Insulting Sinner, that was absolutely perfect.
Molly worthy.
Shorter Barb: Being merely human, I can see that homosexuality is not at the same level of sin as is pedophilia, but if God exists then I would hope that He couldn’t tell the difference; or something.
Hey Barb! Have you ever asked yourself why Hell is necessary? No really! If God’s justice is perfect and we’ve already been punished for our share in the Original Sin by toiling in the fallen world and so forth, then Hell is redundant because we’re already living God’s perfect punishment. Explain that and stay fashionable!
Yes, they can.
So can trauma.
Organic != Genetic.
Barb, how does this life story make him any different from the many other miracle-working dying-and-reborn gods that were fairly common at the time? I’m thinking of Mithras and Osiris specifically, but I know there were many others with the same general life-story.
and, speaking of man-woman marriage being the only “natural” one, and that for the sake of the children, what do you think of those families who are deliberately childless? are they unnatural? what about families who adopt their children?
(I was told by a doctor, when I was in the process of adopting my son, that if God had wanted me to have children, he would have given them to me. In the *only* time I’ve ever had the right comeback, I snapped “He did – *this one*. bah.)
Barb, how does this life story make him any different from the many other miracle-working dying-and-reborn gods that were fairly common at the time? I’m thinking of Mithras and Osiris specifically, but I know there were many others with the same general life-story.
and, speaking of man-woman marriage being the only “natural” one, and that for the sake of the children, what do you think of those families who are deliberately childless? are they unnatural? what about families who adopt their children?
(I was told by a doctor, when I was in the process of adopting my son, that if God had wanted me to have children, he would have given them to me. In the *only* time I’ve ever had the right comeback, I snapped “He did – *this one*. bah.)
The fact that same-sex couples can be effective parents is beyond dispute now. Join the 21st century, Barb.
Men wrote the Bible. God created homosexuals. Think about it.
sorry for the double post – my computer is wonky.
Anthony Barb has yet to demonstrate how Homosexuality and pedophilia, incest and rape are equal.
I didn’t call them “equal.” They have commonality because they are sexual compulsions for those who think the thoughts and do the acts –but I have said that ALL sins are similar in that we are inclined to do them. They all have the death penalty attached. We all die because of sin.
The good news is that a loving God sent Christ to pay for that sin and the Holy Spirit can break the compulsion and the bondage of all tendency to sin. And the result is the restoration of immortality -the resurrection of the dead to eternal life.
I said that some sins people do together are mutually consensual –and that is better than making a victim of underage or unwilling people. But it doesn’t change the fact that all sex outside of hetero marriage is sin –because of the inherent risks to ourselves and society from sexual sin, sex trafficking, prostitution, forniction, pornography, pedophilia –as well as rape, incest, pedophilia and homosexuality. God’s laws are for our good and the good of all humanity.
Kseniya –good parents like Rosie Odonnell –who had to tell her boy when he said he wanted a dad –that it wasn’t going to happen. I predict, she’ll find that a father is something he really really thinks he wants and needs. It was his birthright. Sure, rosie will provide money and affection and education, but she can’t give the boy a real father in his home because SHE has chosen to be the father figure in adopting that boy to live with her and her “wife.” I think the jury is still out on the success of gay parenting.
sorry for the double post – my computer is wonky.
Do you really want to start making a list of good heterosexual parents vs. homosexual parents?
because you will lose.
Bah shit hit post instead of preview.
You will lose because there is a long easily pointed to history of what bad heterosexual parents do to their children.
Yet you pick a celebrity as your example?
I can walk down the street and point out bad hetero parents.
My point being that examples of one being bad do not mean all are bad.
Barb the brainless bozo is back. More inanities. Maybe with twenty years of practice she might actual write a cogent sentence. Yawn, what a bore. I have a little list. They will not be missed…
@693:
There’s not even a trial! The American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org) has already spoken on this issue.
The only possible consequence of having gay parents is having to put up with intolerable bigots such as yourself.
You want to know what else needs to be done? Divorces must be stopped. For it is better for children to remain in an abusive house for the benefits of having two genders outweigh the abuses. Want to know what else must end? Parents dying when their offsprings are still children. How selfish of that parent to die instead of sticking around to provide a gendered example.
Barb, on behalf of myself and every person who doesn’t believe that your Magical Sky-Daddy exists and that the laws of your Book of Hate are garbage, and that you yourself are nothing more than a crawling, slime-sucking hate-spewer, shut the fuck up, get the fuck out, and die in shame.
for Becca: Mithras and Osirus –ARE mythological. Jesus Christ entered history — and the books read like history –not like myths. I believe this history; you don’t.
Adoption is a good thing for a husband and wife to do. When there is a child who needs adoption and there is no married couple to do it, a single person should have consideration to be an adoptive parent.
However, my understanding is that it is very hard for hetero couples to adopt these days. If there are children available, the hetero couples should be given preference because having both a mother and father in the home is advantageous to the child by every social measure. (Granted exceptions in cases of dysfunctional marriages.)
sorry for the double post – my computer is wonky.
Discrimination begets inequality. Fuck you, we’re progressing past this holier-than-thou age.
Poor barb the bigot, couldn’t figure her way around the golden rule with somebody behind her hitting her over the head with a fry pan every time she failed to properly use the golden rule. She would be dead due to terminal stupidity. Barb, you are a batshit insane stupid bore. And you aren’t a christian, since Jesus and his golden rule never appears in your blathering. If you actually used the golden rule, you would be a much nicer person.
Kobra, some of are working towards that end. Sadly, there are enough loud and ignorant people who think like Barb who oppose every progressive idea. Pam’s House Blend is a fine place to keep tabs on people like Barb.
Your evidence for this is what? The Bible is all second hand, contradictory information. It’s quite likely that the passage in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews that mentions Jesus was a forgery written by a Christian apologist to provide historical evidence of Jesus’ existence. Parallel sections of Josephus’ Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the third century, who quoted from the Antiquities, do not mention the passage. Tacitus was writing what the Christians in the year 116 believed, and is not an independent confirmation of the Gospel reports.
Liar. You think no such thing. You are creepily obsessed by other people’s bedroom lives, and determined to stamp it out. You yourself – a lesbian? That’s my impression. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with that – after all homosexuality is a perfectly natural part of human sexuality – but when you hypocritically condemn others – why that’s a positively christian levels of hypocrisy.
Every post you make here makes people loathe your faith more. By your attitude, by your words, you mock your god. You spit on Christ, you call, loudly for his Crucifixion, again and again.
Well, I could be wrong, and maybe Jesus’ message was one of hatred, stupidity, and intolerance. If so, I’ll say fuck Jesus. In either case I’ll say “fuck you”
You’re going to be banned here. I realise that’s what you want because you don’t want to admit that coming here and spouting your hateful spite is really a mistake, which you can never admit. For me, it’s been valuable – just to see how appalling you christianists really can be. Oh, don’t worry – I have no problem with religious people, or my Christian friends – at all. it’s just you.
But to see you trash christ with every word, that I do find shocking.
One of you said: I think others are going to jump in here, but I’d be skeptical about the “hundreds of scientists” on that list. My understanding is that very few of them are evolutionary biologists — and the statement itself is vague enough that someone could sign it and still accept basic evolution. There’s not really a controversy in biology, among scientists.
There is, too, a controversy in biology among scientists. Behe is a biologist. I guess he says he believes in evolution–but not the random, unguided, undesigned version. My husband is more of a biologist than most of you prattling away here, I suspect. All MD’s are biologists and many of them are skeptical of Darwin’s theory. And Geologists and astronomers weigh in on the age of the earth evidence which is related to evolution issue. So scientists in other disciplines do have some validity weighing in on the topic.
Again, what creature is in transitional mode today, crossing over as an example of macro-evolution? NONE, so where’s your observed evidence that such a transition ever happened??? And why shouldn’t some creature be doing it now so that you can observe it?
Barb, go read a real book, you slime.
/r/ b&.
Just heard Barb’s theme-song, as done by the Austin Lounge Lizards:
Jesus loves me (but he can’t stand you)”.
Damnation! She’s worse than ever.
On second thought, I take that back – Barb isn’t slime. See, that would be insulting to the good name of slime.
682 SEF
I do believe in free will. I think God has given us choice –that’s why Adam and Eve sinned. They were tempted and they had choice.
Janine — I wonder what it means that you so intensely hate someone you’ve never met –who really hasn’t done you any harm. I think you are wrong, wrong, wrong –but that doesn’t make me hate you. You think I’m wrong, so that’s grounds for hatred from you.
You all speak of my lack of following the Golden Rule, but there is no evidence of it in YOUR postings –not even a modicum of politeness in discourse. Not a bit of civility here. That confirms to me whose side you are on in the eternal scheme of things.
You do, indeed, have choice.
Why can there not be a Creator-God who designed us as heterosexuals for our own good, procreation and family life? Why can he not have a preference that we do sex by His plan instead of going our own way like sheep without a shepherd?
and how would it be loving to you to fail to tell you the Truth from His Word –if, in fact, that Word is true –about eternal life, about Christ as the shepherd of the sheep who saves them, about repentance and faith for salvation, about sin and righteousness and how we should then live?
Barb the Brainless Bozo. Still with an IQ in the single digits. Ignorance never changes, but religion and god make it worse, and she has a terminal case.
Most MDs are mechanics, not scientists.
Darwin put out his theories 150 years ago. Since that time they’ve been corrected, modified, expanded, revised and reworked. In short, they’ve evolved. Some parts of Darwin’s theories, primarily natural selection, are still accepted in recognizable form. Some of his other theories, like inheritance, have been discarded. But the vast majority of biologists and scientists in similar fields accept evolution.
You’ve been told this many times. If you can’t keep up, take notes.
Barb, that isn’t going to cut it.
There is a history written about Luke Skywalker. And the books read like history–not myth. Heck, there are even books out there written from the perspective of this Luke Skywalker.
I assert that Luke Skywalker was an actual living human being.
Can you prove that he didn’t exist?
Bible verses Patricia? But then, the hateful stupid bitch really isn’t a christian at all, is she? And you probably don’t want to root in that heap of garbage again – it might bring up bad memories of when you were one of them, and all the shit you had to believe.
I think she’s going for a banning anyway. She doesn’t like the stuff she’s forced herself to read here, but ignoring it, and existing on the conviction that she’s somehow just like Jesus, must be hard. I bet she starts off again on that anti-gay shit. People really find that too much to bear, especially as so much of the homophobia they suffer is precisely because of people like Barb suppressing their own feelings then spewing them out as hatred.
Behe also testified under oath that his definition of “science” includes things like astrology. Behe represents a crackpot, not a controversy within the scientific community.
No, actually, no they’re not.
Do you know of any who reject evolution and don’t have a religious imperative to reject it?
Geologists and astronomers certainly do have something so say about the age of the earth and the universe. There is also no controversy within geology or astronomy as to whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old. Try to find me an astronomer or geologist who reject an old earth for non-religious reasons.
1. How do you define macro-evolution?
2. What do you think a modern-day transitional form ought to look like? A transitional form is a species that includes characteristics of species that appear earlier with characteristics of species that appear later. Since we don’t yet know what the characteristics of future species will be, it’s tautological to complain that we can’t identify current transitionals.
Anal sex, Barb. Good thing? Bad thing? All in the context of a happy, Christian marriage?
Is Barb still claiming some sort of standing to discuss modern biology because her husband is an MD? “All MDs are biologists”? IIRC Barb’s authority-hubby has been practicing for over 20 years. That means the last biology courses he took were Anatomy, Physiology, and Biochemistry back in his first two years of medical school, so at least 22 years ago. All specifically about human biology. Even IF he majored in biology as an undergrad, a typical pre-med curriculum (especially back then) would have exposed him to evolution in any rigorous way only in introductory bio (freshman or sophomore; coverage wildly variable), comparative anatomy, and maybe animal physiology.
A “biologist” he’s not. And Barb?
plonk her
Against nature?
Ignorance speaks.
You see, Barb, both homosexuality and bisexuality have been found in every single vertebrate species that has been observed long enough. Lots and lots and lots and lots of things that I consider disgusting are nonetheless natural.
You’ll have to find another argument than the appeal to nature (…which, BTW, is a logical fallacy anyway even in cases where it actually gets its facts right).
Behold, Barb: there are lizard species that consist only of lesbian females — they reproduce by parthenogenesis but nonetheless need an orgasm to get ovulation going… You name it, you can find it in nature.
——————–
Anyway, thank you, Barb, for confirming that you’re bisexual.
You have shown yourself unable to imagine both the existence of straight people like me (comment 263) and the existence of lesbians like Janine (comment 549); both the existence of males who never have sexual thoughts about men and the existence of females who never have sexual thoughts about men.
It follows that the only orientation you can imagine — because it’s yours — iiiiis…
(After this, it won’t surprise you to learn that gay men, too, really exist. The formerly frequent commenter MAJeff, who now writes his thesis full-time, once mentioned that whenever fundamentalists like you try to demonstrate he’s a sinner in need of Jesus and ask him if he’s ever “looked at a woman with lust”, he is able to say “no” without lying.)
——————–
No, hypothesis. It’s simply not big enough to be a theory.
So you deny the fact that the sexual orientation and the finger lengths of men correlate?
It takes some chutzpa to outright deny reality.
There are anecdotes of people suddenly becoming pedophiliac after getting some brain damage. But “excuse” isn’t the right word for such an explanation. That’s because acts of pedophilia cause trauma in children and are therefore evil; pedophiles should, it follows, be kept from acting out their desires.
No such reason has yet been found for preventing homosexual acts. If you find one, do go ahead and tell us…
———————-
Oh, one last thing: it’s spelled von Braun and, roughly, pronounced “fawn brown”. (The second part even means “brown”; it’s the same word, derived from a common ancestor…)
All this prattle about sin. How about a little gospel Barb?
Peter asks Jesus – line 13: “What is the sin of the world?”
Line 14: The Teacher answered:
Line 15: “There is no sin.”
So why don’t you take your frapping sin, and go home and check what kind of drugs your husband is giving you Barb?
For one extra bonus bonehead point, Barb – name us the Gospel I just quoted.
It’s possible. It’s also possible I’m really a hyperintelligent panda with internet access.
Because he’s an imaginary character.
I think you’ve missed the answer to your own question- you have not yet established the truth of these claims. Please do so before you go wasting other people’s time with them.
It types too.
And listen, could the person out there reminding her to “breathe” please stop?
Barb:
There are a few people out there who believe that the Earth is flat. Would you also say that there is a controversy in geoscience regarding the shape of our planet?
Until a few years ago (I think he’s dead now), there was at least one academic geologist who didn’t accept the Theory of Plate Tectonics. I think he was still alive in 2000. So, would you say that in the year 2000, there was a controversy in geology regarding Plate Tectonics?
How many papers has your husband published? How many recent papers? I don’t care how many courses someone has taken in anatomy, physiology, histology, and biochemistry. If you’re not actually doing biology (testing hypotheses or at the very least, in the medical fields, writing up and publishing descriptions of strange situations you’re encountering in your practice), then you’re not a biologist.
You keep insisting on this, but you have yet to back it up, despite the fact that I have asked you to, in this very thread, several times. Proof through vigorous assertion might work for the Bush administration, but it doesn’t work well with those members of humanity who are rational.
Where is YOUR PROOF, Barb, that there are no creatures in a transitional mode today? Back up your assertion or stop repeating it.
No. Not “you guess” he says. He most definitely does say… For example, in this interview:
You again:
How many times do we have to go over this? We have the molecular biology evidence (and Behe would agree with this). We have the genetic evidence (and Behe would agree with this). We have the transitional fossil evidence (and Behe would agree with this).
Since you don’t have any understanding of molecular biology, genetics, or palaenotology, your questions are nothing more than your profound ignorance of those sciences speaking. And if you think Behe is wrong about common descent, why do you cite him as an authority in the first place?
Owlmirror, or Patricia, doesn’t it say sometihing in the Bible about being prideful and judgemental? I’m confused. Barb says she’s a christian but….
Not anymore! He sent me a text message a few hours ago announcing that it was done! He’ll be Dr. MAJeff in a couple of weeks! Yay for him!
And so then we should expect him to show back up soon? That would be terrific.
That is great news. Cheers for MAJeff!
Huzzah!
Huzzah!
Huzzah!
Perhaps now he can come back to this pit of vipers.
Great news. Please pass along the well wishes of the Pharyngulite horde/ilk for a successful defense. I’ll have Patricia start chilling the bubbly at Pharyngula saloon for use at the proper moment.
Hot Damn! Great going MAJeff.
Let’s see, that will call for the really good stuff….uhh.. I know, the three day old grog !
Oh dear. The official Gruesome Trio has just checked in.
As long as it is fuming…Oh yeah, that’s the stuff that takes the hair off newts. Nevermind.
AnthonyK – Oh yes the holy babble is full of verses about those two issues. Barb is breaking them all. She is also speaking to men that are not her husband or father. She is trying to teach men. And if I guess her to be younger than I am she is insulting me by giving advise to an Elder when she should be silent.
I’m really starting to wonder if her husband gives her drugs.
Why would you think that if there is in fact a Creator-God up in the sky (BOOGA-WOOGA!!!) , that He gives a damn one way or the other? The condemnation of homosexuality is the condemnation of men (and women), and it comes from ONE source: an ancient book of superstitions, fables, and fantasy, representative of the era (the Bronze Age) when it was written. Religion condemns homosexuality because it is an effective organizational survival tool that creates an enemy for its members to hate.
Support of homosexuality comes from MANY sources, including history, biology, sociology, and the advancement of human rights through centuries of struggle. The more educated you are, the more tolerant you are, the more likely you are to accept people for who they are. You are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality, and the wrong side of love.
There you go again, conflating fantasy and reality. Please spare us your childhood fables, we’ve heard this same old bullshit too many times before. It contributes nothing to the conversation, and just makes everyone even more annoyed with you than they already are.
We understand, really we do. You think you have a duty to tell other people how they should live. You think yourself better than us because you think you know “the Truth”.
But you aren’t. It really is that simple, Barbie. You aren’t. You’re willfully ignorant and woefully misguided. You’re full of hatred that’s been pounded into you by your religion, by people whose livelihood depends on making you hate people who aren’t like you. You think you’re saved, but in fact, you’re lost.
I’m sorry you’re consumed by your religious intolerance and hatred. Those of us who have been saved from religion understand the great relief that comes with throwing off the yoke of religious tyranny. All we can do is try to shine the bright light of reason onto the dark ignorance of religion, but it’s up to you whether you will open your eyes to the sunshine.
The gruesome trio. I get the giggles just imagining the three of us on a park bench somewhere observing trolls.
I’d probably have to have my ribs wrapped from laughing.
Of course, you do, Barb. We already knew that. It was the only response that a person such as yourself, who values dogma above all things – even truth or fact – could possible have made.
Teenagers of Same-Sex Parents Developing Normally.
Same-Sex Parents Rise Well-Adjusted Kids.
These two links are just the tip of the iceberg, Barb. Study after study, involving hundreds of children, spanning multiple decades, say that your “jury” claim is false. Are you lying, or simply unaware of the facts? Do you have some countermanding evidence to present?
Evidence, not opinions. EVIDENCE.
Of course you bring up Rosie O’Donnell, just as a good little conservative homophobe should. Barb, that’s ONE PERSON. I know one person, too. I will call her Sally. Her father died when she was three. Her mother gave her another father. From the time she was six until she turned fourteen, he used Sally as his personal sex slave.
I think my anecdote trumps your anectode.
Beyond anecdotes, we find tidbits like these:
It’s time to join the human race in the 21st century, Barb. You guide to life is millenia out of date.
Barb(#713)
You do Janine, and people like my sister and parents, harm every time you step into the voting booth, you sanctimonious bitch. You do us all harm by trying to raise children with the same warped and intolerant ideas of “love” that you’re spewing on this board. You imagine this is love so you can pat yourself on the back, but we know; we recognize your brand of hate for what it is.
You come here to bathe in the abuse so you can shore up those feelings of righteousness. You don’t deserve politeness. You’ve been judged because you came in here and done nothing but judge us. (Didn’t you heed the warning in your own, precious book?) You deserve only as much happiness as you think the people you hate are going to get after they die and go to hell. Now get over yourself and fuck off forever.
Or, if possible, longer.
Just to provide a little counterbalance–
Barb? I don’t hate you. I just think you’re completely wrong and dedicated to an ideology that’s harming you as devastatingly as you harm the GLBT folk you come in contact with, and their families.
You may cause a suicide one day, when some poor soul buys the shame and self-hatred you’re dishing out and then discovers you’re selling nothing true when it comes to change.
But I still don’t hate you.
Easy: those that exploded too much have already died out, and with them the heritable tendency to use too much ammo. That’s called natural selection. At the same time, those that didn’t scare the predators enough have already been eaten, and with them the heritable tendency to use too little ammo. This, too, is natural selection.
It’s so simple! So simple!
Everything is the way it is because it got that way.
Like all creationists, you have overlooked the fact that evolution is not random. Mutation is random — but selection is not; selection is determined by the environment.
LOL!
Listen more. You might want to spend a few hours at http://realclimate.org, for instance.
Correct.
What you have overlooked is that there is no such thing as macroevolution in the sense that creationists use the term.
We’ve told you before: you accept that it’s possible to walk across a room, but deny that it’s possible to walk across a country, no matter how many weeks, months or years are available.
What a monstrous sentence. Are you trying to tell us that you can’t think faster than you can type?
1) “Mammalian features” are, by definitions, those that mammals have. So of course mammals share DNA for “mammalian features” — that’s how “DNA for mammalian features” is defined.
Question for you: Why are the similarities between organisms arranged in a tree shape?
What?
Because humans already exist and occupy that ecological niche. Anything else that would be evolving into our ecological niche would have to compete with us, and lose, because we’re already adapted to it.
Really, Barb, evolution is very simple.
We have the fossils.
We win.
— bumper sticker
Define “kind” or “classification”. Or even “species”! Good luck.
There are at least 25 definitions of “species” in scientific papers out there, and, depending on the definition, there are between 101 and 249 endemic bird species in Mexico.
There we have your ongoing transitions! We have species that are at various stages of the process of splitting, and different definitions set the cutoff point into different stages.
What have you been doing all your life? Why don’t you know anything? Don’t you find it fun to read, or something? ~:-|
Fixed it for you (bold insertion).
I thought that’s famous! It says “a virgin” (párthenos) in the Septuagint, but “the young woman” (ha-3alma) in the Hebrew original!
So you are telling God that he can’t do what he doesn’t need to do?
Interesting. Very interesting.
Always funny to find out how creationists are blasphemers by their own criteria…
This is an argument from ignorance. You probably don’t even know that the NT contradicts itself all the time…
Could you elaborate? What are your experiences?
“Scientists”? Have they ever tested a single hypothesis? Most MDs never have, and are therefore not scientists.
Also, I doubt that “leading medical doctors […] often […] doubt evolution” except maybe in the USA, but, again, it doesn’t matter either way.
One of the more embarrassing arguments from ignorance that I’ve seen so far.
Don’t you even know that, of all halfway developed countries, the USA has the most, not the fewest, creationists in the world after Turkey!?! Didn’t you know how alone you are in the world?
Counterexamples: The vast majority of Europeans, Canadians, Australians, Japanese even.
Well, what can I say? You misheard.
It’s true that Berlinski (consistently says that he) does not believe. However, keep in mind that he was once asked why he kept working for the Disinformation Institute and basically answered he’d keep cashing in their checks as long as they wrote them. There aren’t many jobs available for mathematicians, you see…
At least one of them is wrong.
Yet another argument from ignorance.
This may come as a shock to you*, but science cannot prove. It can only disprove.
Suppose we find the truth. How can we find out that what we’ve found is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which we don’t have?
* It shouldn’t, though. We have explained it to you several times already.
Shocker alert!
This, too, is an argument from ignorance.
If you dare, go here to see just how many dozens of times the New Testament contradicts itself on what is necessary and/or sufficent for salvation.
Got this, Barb? The Bible contradicts itself on how to go to heaven!
If you don’t dare to read that list, you can’t ever bring up this topic again without being intellectually dishonest.
Please stop using a spellchecker!
Not just political, harhar.
Yet another argument from ignorance.
Scientists don’t have credibility, Barb, or at least not any credibility that matters for science. Evidence has credibility. Not people.
The great thing about science is that you can study all the evidence yourself. You don’t need to believe anyone.
You misunderstand. We get emotional because we’re sick and tired of hearing the same old stupid claims for the one hundredth time.
Really, some of us have tried to discuss with creationists for ten years or more, and not once has a creationist ever brought up a new argument. Not a single time. Never.
Our old friend, theeeeee… wait for it… argument from ignorance! Hooray!!!
Fine. Now put some evidence on the table.
Here you admit again that you believe everyone is bisexual. Like you.
You’re wrong. I’m incapable of finding members of my own sex attractive. Janine, too, appears incapable of finding members of my (!) own sex attractive…
There’s one tiny flaw in this: as should be blindingly obvious by now, nobody ever gave Barb an education. She doesn’t know shit. She doesn’t even know that she doesn’t know shit (Dunning-Kruger effect).
He was a chemist. Past tense, because he completely stopped publishing as soon as he joined the Disinformation Institute. He’s not a scientist anymore, because he doesn’t do science anymore.
Your ignorance is showing. But I repeat myself.
Hah! In the US perhaps.
Quite so. Josh here is a geologist…
I’m a biologist. Find me in http://scholar.google.com if you doubt that.
This
David, your poor brain cells, I do sympathise. They won’t grow back, you know.
Barb you fuckwit, you don’t have enough brains to make remarks about Janine, so shut the fuck up.
Bring on your non-contradictory, innerrant holy babble. I’ve got a few verses to shove up your sanctimonious ass.
Congratulations to MAJeff!
It does actually happen, just not much.
Surely you mean “bona fide”? Though I have to admit that given the way fossils come to be, ‘bonified’ is a quite pleasing malapropism.
Every living organism is transitional. We stand between the proto-humans of the past and whatever happens to us in the future. To (probably mis-)quoteB5 “we stand between the candle and the star”
David, I don’t us no steenking spellchecker! Typing English on a German computer, with a German keyboard is just so much more fun that way.
Oh, and congratulations to MAJeff!
Barb blathered
And some of us engineers look at:
The human spine that is clearly not designed for upright posture
The human knee joint that is not designed for bipedal locomotion
The mammalian eye with its bass ackwards retina
The immune sytem that so often turns againsts us
The appendix that does more harm than good
The circulatory system that is just waiting to let a blood clot or bit plaque get loose and block a crucial artery to the heart or brain. – What no back up system!
And come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for design unless your god is either malicous, incompetent or both for designing such a kluge.
Do you still believe that the “heart that beats for lifetime” violates the first law of thermodynmics.
A heart that beats for lifetime is about as much evidence for design as are legs that are just long enough to reach from your ass to the ground.
Yeah. The Big Guy In The Sky poofing everything into existence in a week is much more reasonable.
/snark
To add to Militant Agnostic’s short-list (of would-be-god’s blunders), try “Things Creationists Hate”.
…exactly what I do. :-|
It’s true, though, that I’ve seen and probably made this kind of typo before.
The vertebrate eye, in fact. And, independently, the killer jelly eye. Not, however, the cephalopod eye, which shows it doesn’t have to be that way, because it is the right way around.
Yes, just as some of us used to see that the Earth, which at the center of the universe, was flat.
Common sense is only as reliable that the data that underpins it.
You’re seeing what you want to see.
hmm, really? a german keyboard makes people reverse “ae” to “ea”? all I ever mess up regularly is putting my z’s where my y’s go, and vice versa
As usual, Kseniya gets it all down in a single sentence.
From Barb’s blog 15/03/09
“…I am a slow reader, writer and thinker…”
Thick as shit. Admitted.
As usual, Kseniya rushed her post and included two embarrassing typos. But thanks. :-)
Common sense is only as reliable as …
Ok Barb if you can convincingly elucidate what is going on between these two male flamingos that are successfully raising chicks together then I would vote that you be allowed to stay.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/gay_flamingos_a.html
Fernando, it’s obvious. The male flamingos were traumatized.
Really Barb? When was the last time you were inclined to molest a child? To murder someone? Does the fact that I’ve never been inclined to do either mean that they are not sins? (Remember, your definition of sin is things “we are inclined to do”.) And are you really going to say that eating shellfish (which is an abomination, according to Leviticus) is similar to molesting a child?
Barb really is a fountain of ignorance, isn’t she? Even the relatively benign blather, such as comment #708, simply reeks of it.
Ok, I opened the jar, and now I can’t stop myself.
Barb wrote in #708:
Asking someone to identify a creature that is “in transitional mode today” is a little like asking your children why their unborn great-great-great-great-grandchildren don’t look like your parents.
Like all creationists, you’re stuck on kinds, Barb. There is no such thing as “transitional mode”, and if there were, one could say that all creatures are perpetually in it. Or should I say, all populations of creatures. Individuals do not evolve.
Are your children identical to you? No. Will their children be identical to them? No. Does this tell you something? Anything?
Now take the population of your town, and ship them all off to Planet X. Then take the population of the next town over and ship them all to Planet Z. Leave them all there for 10,000 years. What do you think might happen? (Hint: Think about Queensland, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, India, Peru, Sweden, and Japan.) Now wait another 250,000 years. What do you think might happen? After a quarter of a million years, will the two populations still look like neighbors or cousins to one another? Will they be able to interbreed? Will members of either population be able to interbreed with whatever’s left of H. sapiens here on Earth? What if we wait 500,000 years? Or two million?
Anyway, for what it’s worth, take a look at this and tell me what you think it is. Is this creature “in transitional mode”, in your view of things? Surely, it must be.
Ah, the mudskipper. My favorite air-breathing, tree-climbing fish.
Yes, Kseniya, they are sweet little things, aren’t they?
However, it’s a shame that the mudskipper, a fish that exhibits some of the characteristics and behaviors generally associated with creatures we would classify as amphibians, is utterly useless as an example of how evolutionary processes just might lead a population of fish to ever so slowly change, over a very long period time, into something more like a frog or salamander.
Heh.
Seriously, though, it’s also important to understand that there’s no guarantee that it will – only that it could.
No, I just meant I’ve seen this kind of typo before — XYX becoming YXY, in this case -aesa- becoming -ease-.
Sigh. I was so looking forward to Barb’s rationalizations about the mudskipper.
Ah well. It’s all for the best, I suppose.
As was I. Ah well. C’est la plonque.
David
Strangely enough, I just ran my sentence through a spell checker and it did not pick any mistakes up.
I also did a google search on Julius Caesar but with Ceaser instead. It did suggest I was using the wrong spelling, but also gave me a list of suggested sites to visit, some of which also use my mis-spelling.
But thanks for the heads up, it is one I will keep in mind for the next time.
If a ceaser is someone who ceases…