Randall Stephens and Karl Giberson have written a book, The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age, which I haven’t read…but the NY Times has what appears to be a very balanced review. It’s premise is that evangelical Christianity has gone far astray, that within the evangelical stew there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism and contempt for academia…it is not surprising that Uncle Karl would make note of that, given the way his own views were steadily squeezed out of BioLogos, the site he co-founded, as more literal-minded views took hold.
The reviewer makes the point, though, that evangelicals’ attitudes towards academia are more complicated than the authors make out: that in particular, there is a tendency for many Christians to make an exceptionally big deal out of degrees. Kent Hovind went to a fake college to get his Ph.D.; Jonathan Wells stumbled through a real graduate program to get a degree; Marcus Ross got his Ph.D. in Cretaceous paleontology so he’d have more credibility in his claims that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. I don’t think that really sinks Stephens’ and Giberson’s point, though — evangelical Christians love the mantle of authority that a Ph.D. gives, but despise the substance of it. A person with a doctorate is only revered as long as they reinforce their superstitious prejudices.
But I don’t find all this serious discussion of the book that interesting. What made me laugh was that both the book and the review have infuriated Ken Ham, one of the chief targets of the argument against these evangelical know-nothings. Oh, Ken Ham is spitting mad.
Recently, two AiG staff members reviewed a book entitled The Anointed, co-authored by a writer who is well known for compromising the pagan religion of millions of years and evolution with God’s infallible Word.
If you follow the creationist movement at all, one of the clear messages is that atheists like me might be the imps of Satan, but we’re mostly irrelevant to their concerns. We offer no serious temptations to Real Christians™. No, the real dangers are those heretics who still promise all of the good rewards of Christianity — eternal life, paradise, good buddy Jesus, that sort of thing — yet do so without demanding the rigors and trials of pure Biblical literalism and fundamentalism. They offer an easy route out of their specific sect, and the fear is that they will substantially erode the faithful away.
So Answers in Genesis will take an occasional contemptuous swipe at godless heathens like me, or even Richard Dawkins, but the real enemies and the real targets of their hatred are people like Ken Miller and Karl Giberson. Compromisers. People who try to find a place for Jesus in evolution are especially wicked.
They also cannot comprehend atheism in the slightest, which is why we’ve been relegated to the status of “pagan religion”. Everything is a religion, from church service to lifestyle to beliefs, so everything is dealt with in a great grand act of projection.
Here’s how Answers in Genesis sees the world:
In our modern church today, there are many leaders who have compromised with the pagan religion of the day (i.e., evolution and millions of years—indeed, this really is today’s pagan religion to explain life without God). Sadly, many Christian leaders have been teaching generations in the church to accept this secular worldview and re-write God’s Word (particularly in Genesis) to fit with it.
Yes, as harsh as it might sound, today there are shepherds in the church who are also “wolves”—they have infiltrated the church with their destructive teaching. Now, I am not saying these wolves are not Christians—I suppose the term can fit Christians as well as non-Christians.
One such example is seen clearly in the writings of Dr. Karl Giberson. Until recently, he was a physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College in Massachusetts—probably leading many students astray about the Bible’s authority with his compromised teaching.
Gosh, I’m a little bit jealous — I wish Ken Ham saw me as just as dangerous as Karl Giberson. All I’d have to do is convert to liberal Christianity and start attending church regularly and…ack. No. Not going to happen, too high a price to pay.
Ken Ham and Georgia Purdom also ripped through the book and found errors. These are real errors and represent genuine problems in the scholarship behind Stephens’ and Giberson’s book (if Bill O’Reilly can get slammed for errors in details, then Karl Giberson should, too), but it’s amazing how petty the problems are.
This is a book that attempts to be a scholarly look at “unscholarly” Christian leaders of prominence in America. It is, after all, published by the prestigious Harvard Press. Yet we were surprised to find several mistakes in the introduction and first chapter alone—plus a generally snide tone that is unbecoming of a scholarly work. For example, the authors gave the wrong month for our Creation Museum’s opening (p. 11); they mistakenly claimed that Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, is a young-earth creationist (p. 19); the year given for the first “Back to Genesis” seminar is incorrect (p. 41); and the name of our daily radio program is incorrect (p. 11).
The biggest mistake there is the attribution of young earth creationism to Dobson, although to be fair, Dobson has been a murky wad of BS on the issue, and seems to me to be willing to take whatever objection to science is currently expedient and babble ignorantly about it. He does promote Hugh Ross, the old earth creationist, which indicates that if nothing else he lacks the ideological purity expected by AiG.
And the bottom line is that Ham cannot refute the major thrust of the Stephens/Giberson argument: the evangelical Christian attitude towards science is epitomized by their lionization of unlettered wacky yahoos like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and Eric Hovind, and that they’re willing to learn from people with Ph.D.s, like Philip Johnson for instance, only as far as they give them rationalizations for their dogma. This is what the NY Times says about that central issue, and Ham can’t dispute it.
Many evangelicals, Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson say, get their information on dinosaurs and fossils from Ken Ham, an Australian with a bachelor’s degree from the Queensland Institute of Technology. Ham believes human reason should confirm the Bible rather than reinterpret it, and teaches that God created the world a few thousand years ago. His ministry, “Answers in Genesis,” includes a radio program broadcast over more than 1,000 stations, a magazine with a circulation of 70,000 and the multimillion-dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky. While other evangelicals — for example Francis Collins, the born-again Christian who runs the National Institutes of Health — offer more nuanced perspectives on science’s relationship to the Bible, Ham commands a far larger audience.
It’s entirely true that Answers in Genesis is the most popular creationist organization in the US (he won’t argue with that), and it’s also entirely true that he’s an ignoramus with minimal education in biology. Not mentioned is that, without concern for what letters he has or doesn’t have after his name, he gets all the science wrong, misrepresents the evidence, and willingly confesses that he’s irredeemably shackled to a book of dogma. Yet his is the voice evangelical Christians choose to listen to. And if they don’t like him, they turn to Eric Hovind, another moron for Jesus, or his jailbird daddy, Kent Hovind.
To be fair, they’re stuck in a hard place. I disagree that Collins is more nuanced — he’s just as loony on Christianity as Ken Ham — but that’s the Christian problem. Ultimately, all of the paladins of faith are forced to defend Christianity, which is antique ooga-booga bullshit on toast. When all of your choices are eye-buggingly batty, you can’t use reason to decide among them any more.
Oddly enough, according to Hector Avalos, the Evangelicals seem to be splitting into factions. Based on age, education, and geography.
It’s possible that being stupid, uneducated, and poor just isn’t that appealing for all of them.
Xianity has one good feature. When they get tired of hating everyone else, they hate each other. The religion has always been hopelessly split and contantly fragmenting.
Another reason they might like to call science a “pagan religion” is that they can thereby obscure the fact that pagan creation myths, or the eternal forms of an Aristotle, are actual alternatives to teaching their myths. Teach the controversy: Indeed, why is Genesis any better than Ovid’s Metamorphases, particularly when the latter is a much more interesting collection of tales.
Naturally they can’t admit the obvious fact that the core of evolutionary mechanisms that matter came solely through science. That would imply that creationism does not come from science, and the truth is what most evangelicals can’t abide.
Glen Davidson
Those heretical science accepting xians are actually the majority worldwide.
Fundie-ism is mostly an American perversion based in the south central USA.
“For the most part, the media [have] overlooked the fragmentation and generational shifts among evangelicals, who are often also lumped with “fundamentalists,” “social conservatives,” and “born-again” Christians.”
They all occupy the same nuthouse. Simple enough for me, and, I submit, clear enough for anyone except residents of that nuthouse.
And what, might you suppose, is a “generational shift”? What happened to Inerrant™?
I dunno the brand o religion coming out of Africa seems pretty close to the wackaloon stuff out of the US…with witches.
damn you Harry Potter….
True dat. One room for the Napoleons, one for Jeebuses, one for the one that think that they can fly.
Can we look on the YEC vs OEC deabte, say Ken Ham vs Hugh Ross, as a science experiment?
Ken Ham prays to his god, then reads Genesis, and claims a clear god-given understanding of the book and science that equals YEC. Hugh Ross is the peer review. He prays just as hard as Ham, to the same god, reads Genesis and the same science, but gets OEC.
I’m not a scientist of any sort, but I understand that this is the point where serious scientists go back to the drawing board with their singular, unconfirmed results. At no point in the scientific method is there room for stubborn claims of revelation. Can’t the creationists see this?
Some evangelicals are creationists and some are not: to those inside the system this is a deep, serious divide, one they expect the general public — and atheists — to acknowledge and respect. And so we do. Yes, good for the evolutionary evangelicals.
But we atheists also see that deep, serious divide between top-down religious ways of viewing the world and the bottom-up scientific approach. Philosophically speaking, this is a more significant difference. Those evangelicals — and Christians — who accept the discoveries of modern science and appreciate the scientific methods must draw a line where science stops and mystical revelation begins. This line can be anywhere. There are no rules other than the comfortable heuristic that, wherever the line is, it should make no sense to atheists.
I suspect Ham and his creationist cohorts think that “worshiping” Nature and appreciating Nature are the same thing. Thus, evolution is pagan.
I am often amused by the evangelical use of the word, “pagan.” I was taught that pagan meant someone who (a) practiced a polytheistic religion and is either unaware of Christianity or pre-dates Christianity. I think the word they want is “heathen” — one who is aware of Christianity but persists in not becoming a Christian.
Of course, words morph all the time and, checking the ffft of all knowledge, I see that pagan and heathen are used interchangeably.
Never mind.
Perhaps Ham should start applying the term “infidel.”
If we are all Pagans now, can we have our stolen midwinter festival back please?
Are you saying that a doctorate doesn’t give you the power to know everything? Phew, I thought it just hadn’t worked for me.
Indeed, words do morph a lot.
I don’t have a problem being called a Pagan. I would find being called a xian rather insulting.
Ok, then that makes me a heathen, apostate infidel. That’s quite a mourhful, how about if I refer to myself as undeluded?
I sometimes refer to nonfundies as normal people. And mean exactly that.
i’m surprised its even a question. I mean wow i’m gone for a week and same shit different day. Not that I care either.
Another lovely line designed to make us choke to death on our food or drink from unsuppressable laughter, eh? It especially encapsulates the more conservative versions of Christianity with their “Devil’s gonna getcha!”, Pascal’s Wagery attitude.
“… within the evangelical stew there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism and contempt for academia.”
That’s always been the case in the USA at least since G.McReady-Price.
Well, it’s possible to be more nuanced in one’s Christianity and exactly as loony as Ken Ham, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I think a chimpanzee could be more nuanced in its Christianity than Ken Ham.
Aratina Cage! *Hugses*
It was very balanced. I liked it.
Could the AiG authors be actually not using “pagan” as a common purpose insult, but trying to relate today’s science with the Ancients’ atomist philosophy? Hmm… Nah, let’s not give ’em too much credit.
Heh. Ken Ham must not read scholarly works (genuine ones, I mean) that often if he thinks a snide tone is either rare, or frowned-upon among academics.
Thanks Caine! *Hugs* back at ya!
“Evangelical stew”? How do you prepare that? Do you have a recipe? I am presuming it contains Bibles, but do you use the whole evangelical or just part? Can you substitute a pentecostal if you’re out of evangelicals? That may make the stew too fiery.
We have a Lifeway Christian store near here, I guess that’s a good place to get the main ingredient. Maybe they are having a post-Christnas closeout sale on evangelical Lutherans or Methodists. I guess the plump young ones are more tender than the scrawny bony old ones.
I find the phrase “Christian store” rather funny. A long while ago, I actually asked a salesperson at one of these stores in an outlet mall that had a big “Buy one, get one free” sale, if I bought a Baptist could I get a Presbyterian free. Needless to say, she didn’t get the joke.
Stew makes sense. After all, Catholicism has the fryers.
Jonathan Sarfati likes to add his F.M. title on his book covers, Fide Master in Chess.
Pfathuma demands sacrifice.
Ah, the No True Academic™ defence.
I’m going to enjoy eating this one very much.
Again, do you have any good recipes? According to PZ, evangelicals make for good stew. Denephew Ogvorbis says Catholics are good for frying. I’m guessing mainline moderate Prostenats are too flavorless and not worth the trouble. What about Mormons they do a lot of missionary work, is there a preferred way to prepare them? Barbecuing maybe? Might be appropriate given their pioneer Western US past.
You eat to sate your appetite for flavour? What warrior are you?
I chant:
Wasp gaping. Where Ho! Wasp gaping it its gully.
Wasp gaping. Wasp gaped there. I became a wasp gaping.
Wasp angry with them. My anger, Wasp their muddy, my stomach muddy. His mind gets boiling, inside became muddy. Anger turns even to kin.
My thinking turns; ware thoughts get angry for them.
My mind becomes a whirlpool. Liver thoughts turning.
My victim, bald. My victim, big woman. My victim, children.
My man, bald one; his liver I take back. Strong thoughts his.
His liver I roll it up. His leg I roll it up.
His image I roll it up. His bones I roll it up.
His liver gets thin. His liver broken.
Thoughts become swinging to and fro.
My leg sole, they bring back. My hand palm, fat.
Ken Ham knows not for what he prays.
You really do have the most wonderful turn of phrase PZ. That describes christian sky fairy delusions to a tee.
I would have thought that the preferred means of cooking Christians would be slow roasting on a spit over an open fire at least that is one they seem to rail about, the flames of hell and all.
I would be careful though as the old hypocritical ones may have a high fat content, watch closely and keep a good fire extinguisher handy. charred pig does not have a very good taste.
uncle frogy
“Antique ooga-booga bullshit on toast”… that looks like a Jesus face.
Frikken gold, PZ.
Ham must be quite annoyed that burning at the stake has gone out of fashion. Now all he can do to Giberson is call him names and call his writings “snide.”
As I’ve said before (…hm… probably 4 years ago), I’ve read one of his papers. Published in none less than the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, it explicitly gives the evidence-supported ages of well over 65 million years and nowhere hints at YEC. I still think he’s lying to his parents and his employers at “Liberty” “University” when he claims to be a YEC.
That’s a really interesting way to try to create a difference between two synonyms. English is the only language that has two words for this in the first place (not counting “infidel”)…
This is why I can’t understand why evangelicals would ever vote for a Catholic. I guess they don’t know what the Catholic church’s stance on evolution and human decent from primates is- or else they figure they can make them Baptists at sword-point, once they have done away with all reproductive medicine.
“Evangelical stew” recipe? But you can’t boil that monk, he’s a friar! baddadaboom. A very old recipe.
The observation of more intense competition between similar organisms attempting to occupy the same evolutionary niche is of course consistent with the whole religion as virus meme. Intelligent design has a better chance of infecting the mind of a bible literalist than an atheist.
‘People who try to find a place for Jesus in evolution are especially wicked.’
So, trying to reconcile religion and science is seen as much worse than simply denying religion? How weird! I was sure evangelicals would be convinced to accept evolution if we just weren’t dicks about it.
“So Answers in Genesis will take an occasional contemptuous swipe at godless heathens like me, or even Richard Dawkins, but the real enemies and the real targets of their hatred are people like Ken Miller and Karl Giberson. Compromisers. People who try to find a place for Jesus in evolution are especially wicked.”
I think, this makes sense, if you follow the money…
Another argument against accommodationism.
Evomonkey
I’d stay the hell away from the Mormons if I were you. Have you ever seen the way those dudes smile? I’m convinced that they are full of prions.
DM #35:
Another relic of the dual source of modern English vocabulary. “Heathen” stems from a Germanic root, and “pagan” from the Latin “paganus”, meaning “rustic” or “country-dweller” (because in Europe, Christianism was for centuries the religion of the urban elite, while the peasantry kept their old traditions so long that it prompted the clergy to rededicate local shrines to make them into chapels, claim that this or that old legendary character was really a Christian saint, and so on).
re: 9
My understanding is that the term “pagan” in the narrow sense is a person or a religion that is neither Jewish, Christian, nor Islamic. These three religions historically recognize the “Books of Moses” (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). I think Islam at least in the past has acknowledged Jews and Christians as “people of the Book.” enuf said.
Besides, getting the magic underwear off is a hell of a chore.
Amazingly, most of you seem to be hip to AiG and other creationist sites of the type, which amazes me. I wonder at that. I see amongst you all the total and uniform dismissal of all that they at AiG claim and report.
Curious, yet expected.
But to the assertion that they get ALL the science wrong, as if there are no substantive questions of science raised and answered by those folks, well, I find that charge to be a stretch, personally.
AiG, and particularly CREV.info take the ox by the horns and seem to do a pretty fair job of goring it. I am frequently entertained by them and just distant enough from the matter of origins to not be so rabidly inflamed by their many and insufferable anti-evolutionary blasphemies (read that as ‘objective’).
But I can’t fault any of you; when asked exactly how can any original biological matter remain “fresh” in a dino bone after 65- or 100 million years or so, I’d probably shrivel up,as well.
I guesse all I’d have left for them in the gas tank is mockery as well.
Hilarious.
yawn
Yawn indeed, Long-and-tediously psuedonymed-iste. Since that one instance you referenced, like a revelation, there have come several more. Not a rare occurrence, it turns out.
Ah, another liar for Jesus. It wasn’t fresh at all. It was greatly degraded, fragmentary proteins of ambiguous origin trapped in a mineralized matrix that required acid extraction to remove them. Don’t act like this was chicken meat found on the bone.
what, didn’t anyone teach you how to c/p? or that things after a comma are usually not part of a pseudonym?
citation sorely needed, seeing as all the instances I’ve seen that came “after” were actually more like that cuttlefish chitin: much lying, nothing to support their case.
assuming this turns out to be true… what precisely do you imagine this to signify?
alexmartin #45
Why should it amaze you? We get creationist know-nothings here all the time, trying to peddle a 2500 year old religious myth. Many of them use arguments stolen directly from AIG (stolen because usually no attribution is given). So we’ve become familiar with AIG’s lies.
Who cares what you wonder at?
You’ve wandered into a science blog. We do reality here. AIG does lies to prop up a specific bronze-age creation myth.
Are you always this patronizing?
Certain creationists say that if given a choice between the Bible and reality, they chose the Bible. AIG isn’t that honest. Instead, they lie about science (and religion), apparently because they think God will spank their bottoms forever if they don’t lie.
Somehow I doubt you’re “objective.” But go on, you’re not quite boring yet.
See Jadehawk’s post #46. None of us are shriveling.
Oh. Who cares what you’d have for them?
Yawn.
oops, forgot the link: cuttlefish chitin
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020381
Sorry to have not included a citation. Contrary to popular belief, to be cynical of cynics or to be skeptical of the skeptics does not put me in the bag for “the enemy” or prove a hidden agenda. It’s simply that when I smell bulls*#t, I call it.
Bullshit.
Ah, an alleged skeptic who lies and bullshits for a group who believes in an imaginary deity. Doesn’t sound like someone without an agenda to me. As a chemist, I have no trouble with highly degraded biopolymer existing after that long a period of time. Due diligence was taken. Now, I am skeptical of any claims from a group who presupposes an imaginary deity and book of mythology/fiction being inerrant.
Seriously, you won’t even say the word?
Full of shit.
What’s wrong with your brain? Why do you then proceed not only to agree with jadehawk’s counterpoint, but provide a counterpoint of your own in the ensuing comments? Did you somehow think it would impress people to show that you are knowledegable of the facts that suggest you are full of shit?
And all while providing no examples of this claim:
?
“Binary” or “dualistic” thinking, anyone?
You are either rational (materialist) or a creationist(buffoon); I reject that characterization.
You all claim to be “free thinkers”. Ahem. What that really means to you, in black and white, is RIGHT thinkers: science has firmly established this or that as ‘proven fact’, unquestionable, lest we send out the hordes upon thee.
Pure mob thuggery.
I tell you that I am impartial, detached, dispassionate, and apparently, your circuits begin to trip and blow. Well, that’s your Achilles heel, your blind spot. Best check yourself. Dogma makes one blind. There is not a single tenet in modern science that has not been challenged, often successfully in past and I know that in such case, the past IS prelude.
I cast a cynical eye upon all received wisdom. Can you say the same? Don’t put me in a box because you made an investment in an enterprise you cannot allow to fail. I am not adverse (read “afraid”) of the idea of the Divine foot in the door; apparently, you all are. At a time when cosmologists are forced to own up to the fact of the ultimate origin of energy and matter http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328473.500-the-genesis-problem.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news , I won’t play the ignorant fool ducking under the bed covers to hide from the Boogeyman.
Correction:averse, not adverse.
Of course things get challenged in science. Challenging, testing, etc. is what science is all about. What there is no scientific proof of, nor need for, is any sort of supernatural being.
If you are impartial then you should follow the actual facts. The fact is that there is no proof of any such supernatural being so far.
And as a scientist I am well aware that any theory is subject to testing, and attempts to disprove it. But you only get to replace a working theory by another that is better than the one that is working.
So no, I would not state that any theory is 100% true and could never be changed. However, any theory looking to modify or overturn a current theory (though modification is usually the way these days) it would have to explain everything the current theory does. Plus predict something the old theory doesn’t, in a way that could be tested. ‘Goddidit’ is not a valid theory by that measure.
Ariaflame, Hail fellow well met.
Did you follow the link?
You are a person of science and of letters. Your issue and that of your peers, as I have made abundantly clear, is not with me.
Garbage in, garbage out: you start wrong, you end wrong. That’s all I’m saying.
No one has made that characterization on the whole. They have however done it of you because of the evidence you present of yourself.
A) Taunting it pathetic and childish when your target has the minimal perception to recognize it and the intelligence to know that any action one tries to elicit through such tactics is not one worth doing. Most of us have seen Back to the Future and have absorbed that aesop, butthead.
B) Your last sentence is contextually confused.
What?
And who is “they”? the Borg Collective, the Hive Mind? Where is the button to turn it off?
@alexmartin
From context they would be other people who have responded to you.
This non-sequitor is just sad. How old are you? You’re either trolling, have contextual illiteracy, or are very young.
Makes me wish I had my old nyme title “I SPEAK FOR THE HIVEMIND GROUPTHINK”
No, they don’t. We recognise self-deluding smuggards who claim to be über-sceptical readily, because while less common than ordinary creobots, they turn up here from time to time. You have, and are, nothing new, original, or clever.
OT: This seems to be a virulant offshoot of ‘truthyness’ or perhaps a side effect of it. Or maybe it’s from the idea of ‘open mindedness’ and that horsestuff. The idea that forming a consensus on something is equivalent to dogma or walking in goose step. That somehow it’s of value to promote or keep some voice around that will say “The Sky is Green” rather than have any community that simply has reached the conclusion that it is blue.
Funny how people who make this claim against us shows dogmatic thinking. My retort: “show me the evidence, preferably from the peer reviewed scientific literature.” And that is put up or shut up about your claims.
Science is not absolutely (100%) right. 99.9999% is good enough for me. Now, science can only be refuted by more science. Inane and silly questions and philosophy won’t do it. Now, where is your papers from the peer reviewed scientific literature? Or you have nothing put your uninformed opinion.
Then you will need direct evidence for “divine” (your imaginary deity). You need to provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to an eternally burning bush that can be examined. Put up or shut up about it.
Science always has a more parsimonious explanation than imaginary deities. Remove the deities and nothing changes.
Now, either cite the scientitific literature with positive evidence for your claims, or shut the fuck up about them.
Looked at the link. An opinion piece, basically going over the same old ‘if there’s a creation, then does that mean there is a creator’ schtick.
Do I claim to know what happened to cause the big bang? No. We know what happened after a certain amount of time, (admittedly the time is measured in nanoseconds I think – cosmology is not my area professionally) but before that? No. But a ‘creator’ is not needed because if you postulate a creator then the question merely becomes ‘so who created them’? No further on, and with a needless level of complication, and no data to suggest this ‘creator’ existed.
We do get particle creation for short periods of time without cause, so it is not inconceivable that the universe did so. Whether the physics we know applied at that point is also unknowable. I do not feel the need to make up fairy stories to fill in the gaps.
One thing you are right about. Garbage in, Garbage out. Start off with false premises, like supernatural creatures to explain natural events, and you will not be able to predict very much based on those false premises.
Oh, and I’m not a ‘fellow’.
People need to realize that acting like Fox Mulder in real life makes you look like an idiot. Frankly, it did on the show too but lazy writing didn’t take into account how moronic Mulder was.
My, my. Tsk tsk. How personal we have all become.
What’s needed at this point would be copious tankards of ale, a fiery instigator, pitchforks, and a few flaming torches to light the way.
And such an effusion of rage! I suppose where “reason” fails, a punch in the nose must suffice. Some of you represent your cause well…
At any rate, Nerd of Redhead, blah, blah, I’ve made no “claims”, as such, to validate: I have forwarded a position, sans blandishments. Even so, I gave two citations with which to illustrate said position, as example. Nothing further. Since I’m now become (inexplicably) the focal point of this discussion, I reiterate that I have questions, not an agenda. Questions that the eminent Hawkings himself is wrestling with; but, whereas a certain encumbrance of logic seems to impishly dog his ear and rake his dreams at night (godditit?), I am not similarly apoplectic. I have no such avoidance issue. Let the evidence lead where it may, I say.
Problem with that?
So getting back to the article, Ham vs. Giberson, that’s internecine esoterica. The relevance is the underlying sub-strata, time, space, and matter and the issue of why, why, why. I am not so facile as to derisively conclude “I know the answer”.
Thank you for your time.
That wasn’t rage. You weren’t called a cupcake, nor offered a rotting porcupine. That was people pointing out that speculation without any evidence to back it up is worthless. As it, it’s not worth our time to bother with it.
And given your tone trolling you got off fairly lightly. So far.
So if you’re not going to make claims, what exactly is your point? That people don’t know exactly how the universe started? Big whoop. Not exactly news. What there isn’t is any evidence to suggest that it was by any creator being. Are you claiming there is? Or are you just handwaving and thinking yourself clever by trolling?
We’ve heard that one before. Common creobot tone trolling. Your questions do imply the claim that a deity exists. Either put up or shut the fuck up with evidence. And you failed to cite the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your claims. I do know that. You don’t understand the differnce between someone expressing an unscientific opinion, and real science. Learn the difference so you stop embarrassing yourself with idiocy.
Here’s the thing. Either you have evidence for a deity or you don’t. If you have evidence, present it. If you don’t, shut the fuck up about it. That is what people of honesty and integrity, like scientists in their professional work, do. You imply claims, but supply no evidence. That is the realm of liars and bullshitters. So, what is your choice? Are you a person of honesty and integrity, or a liar and bullshitter. Your next post will tacitly tell us.
First, Ariaflame, I apologize, madam. I recognize that you are not a “fellow”.
Second, You do not KNOW what happened a few nanoseconds after the (heretofore comically derided) “Big Bang”: you have various notions and hypothesis about inflation.
Do you recognize the difference?
Will you again speak ex cathedra on that matter?
Don’t bamboozle.
Third, you get “particle creation…without cause” in the same way that you get muffins instead of crescent rolls without flour.
Who do you imagine you are talking to?
Fourth, tone-/trolling? As if. I have come to the best of the best here at PZ Meyers’ vanity pet to get that good ol’ clarity and depth. Y’all school me, as I am a dissolute fool who is not satisfied that “it just” happened” and “just because”. I have an itch I cannot scratch. Y’all have your escape hatch, making promissory notes on future deposits to the bank of eternal regression to the doorway of Truth. I do not buy it. I say to you all, as was your challenge me, to “Put up or shut up”. Don’t give me Futurespeak, handwaiving, Futureware, bandwagoneering, the like. Feel me?
Because, frankly, I Refuse To Believe.
“Free Thinker”.
Why do I bother? Because arrogance and hubris are so unbecoming and irksome.
Oh, and AM, science, due to the lack of evidence for deities, puts the null hypothesis as non-existence for all deities and other stupornatural phenomena. In order for science to truly consider a deity, you need to the type of evidence I mentioned above in order to show existence. Vague claims and sophist presuppositional philosophy doesn’t do anything toward that evidence.
Why do I bother? Because arrogance and hubris are so unbecoming and irksome.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
It is far too late at night for me to address your concerns. Perhaps you should actually talk to some cosmologists that would be better able to address your questions. If that is, you are able to formulate a question.
And no, I don’t ‘know’ what happened then. I don’t ‘know’ for example that the universe wasn’t created a nanosecond ago with everything including my memories in place, but it isn’t very likely. What there are are some good theories based on evidence. If you want to know what they are then read some astrophysics textbooks. Could the theories be wrong? Sure. Got any better ones? (ones invoking supernatural creatures don’t count).
Perhaps it is better phrased as particle creation with no apparent cause. But I’m not up on the cutting edge there. Not my field. And apparently not yours either.
I have absolutely no idea who I’m talking to, apart from someone who hasn’t read the Standards & Practices, or who has but doesn’t care. And who can’t even spell PZ’s name correctly. (That does seem to be common with a certain type of troll).
Science isn’t a collection of facts, or Knowledge, or Truth, it’s a method for determining and describing, to the best of our abilities the universe in which we reside.
We use it because it works. And because I am a scientist I am willing to alter my opinions and understanding when evidence is presented to me that a theory is incorrect. But only when this evidence is presented. You don’t got no evidence, I don’t got no time for you.
I am gonna put this to rest.
I am not interested in God or deities or religion or faith or any of that crap. I am not interested in proving he/it/they exist or any such foolishness. I am not stealthily pushing for religious conversion. I am not proselytizing or godbotting or whatever the f*&k.
Screw all that.
I don’t care what you believe. If there were a god, I wouldn’t care if you floated on clouds for eternity or roasted in aq hell. Whatever. You do you. Dig?
What I care about is the militant stridency wafting up from the atheist came. How y’all are just so damn sure, so certain, that you Know Sh*t.
Uh huh.
How dare any of you force upon the world the the lie that you Know Sh*t?
Just go on and say that you do not Know Sh*t beyond what you can see and detect. Go on and say that to the best of our ability, on this humble little rock orbiting a modest star in the backwaters of a mediocre galaxy, we have put together what we believe to be a viable, plausible story based upon what we can perceive and detect, but beyond that, we don’t Know Sh*t.
And if someone should come along and tell you that before there was time and space and matter there was Identity that kickstarted the whole affair, get outta their face, give a humble shrug, and remember that ultimately beyond what you can see and detect, test, verify or falsify, presently, and perhaps well into the future, when it comes to knowing Where It All Began, you Don’t Know Shit.
You dig?
Science it works
Yes, Ing, indeed.
Science (,the people in engaged in the practice, and the processes thereof,)works.
Marvelously, gloriously, fantastically, critically, crucially.
Thank you very much.
It appears alexmartin was trying to troll us and we weren’t playing properly. He seemed confused between condescension and rage. Now he’s retreated to accusing us of knowing things and admitting our knowledge.
A very odd troll.
How dare you make the evidenceless claim that science doesn’t work? Talk about utter and total bullshit.
Science works because it is self-correcting and evidence based. Mistakes are acknowledged and work goes forward. Compare this to a presuppositional and imaginary deity, and an inerrant book that is mythology/fiction. Being inerrant there is no error correction, and any and all errors that crept in are still there. If there are other ways of knowing, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstate that they exist, and that they give reproducible results that do advance the knowledge of mankind. Presupposing an imaginary and evidenceless deity does none of that.
Evidenceless claims can be dismissed with prejudice. YOu aren’t advancing your cause, merely making yourself look like an ignorant and presuppositional godbot/creobot.
Neither do you. And an imaginary deity/creator is nothing but utter and total bullshit, oh fuckwitted one. If you knew shit, you wouldn’t have embarrassed yourself with your inane and ignorant posts.
Oh, and AM, the question no presuppositionalist creobot ever answers is how the creator came about. They just wave their hands and make the special pleading of “eternal”. Evidenceless claims like that can and will be dismissed out of hand. Solid and conclusive physical evidence, try it.
alexmartin,
It’s Hawking, lackwit.
None whatever. The thing is, there is currently no evidence whatever for a creator or deity of any kind.
Did you come through a timewarp from the 1960s?
Don’t you mean strident militancy?
Neither “know” nor “shit” needs an initial upper-case letter there, you semi-literate poseur; and if you mean “shit”, write “shit”, you mealy-mouthed dumbfuck. For someone claiming to be more sceptical than the sceptics, you certainly are sure of yourself. “Lie”, for example, implies deliberate deception; so you are claiming that not only are we wrong, but that we know we are wrong. How do you know?
I do know that random capitalisation is a sure sign of stupidity.
The inflation hypothesis makes specific predictions about the structure of the universe at the largest scale, which makes it testable.
You, on the other hand, are babbling about some nebulous thing called “Identity” that somehow existed before time, space and matter, and not only fails to make a testable prediction, it conveniently allows for any idea you might ever want to make a case for.
Do you recognize the difference? Dig? Can you surrey? Can you picnic?
(Yes, I did come through a time warp from the 1960’s.)
So, we get from Mr. Martin a combination of someone thumping their chest about being More Skeptical than Thou, while dropping off those hoary chestnuts about atheist stridency/arrogance in between frequent bouts of JAQing off to the tune of “Teach the Controversy!”. Why is that these supposedly objective, humble folk with no dog in the fight assume that the people who confidently reject creationism must not know about creationism, and virtually never apply that same standard to those who reject evolution in favor of creationism? Perhaps these objective, humble skeptics might want to actually show that they have a grasp of what the expert consensus on the matter is and the evidence and arguments presented, before they stink up the conversation with their blather about how the pro-science side needs to give the awful PRATTs of creationists yet another consideration. Just some food for the thoughtless.
It gets deeper and deeper.
SCIENCE is the best thing man has to offer and available. The scientific method is the best product, bar none, that mankind has ever devised.
Without which, All would be lost in a miasma of savagery and mysticism.
There is my line in the sand, Don’t accuse me again of being anti-science or anti-scientific.
I have made myself clear, or it should have been:
The origins story of something out of a nothing which is really an eternally varied permutation of something is on par with the Causeless first Cause of the theist, whether you like it, see it, admit it, acknowledge it or not. There is no answer for why an amaranthine void should not be just that.
Hate the messenger. You were not there to witness a thing and neither was I. The difference is that I have no investment in the game, and you do.
Which shoots down your complaint about how dare we think we know shit.
Or how about this
In lack of evidence the null claim atheism is rational rather than the positive claim theism.
After you promote AiG?
Hey don’t accuse me of being racist just because I speak favorably of World Net Daily or Stormfront!
To quote Sherlock Holmes “Every disguise is a self portrait”
Your protests to the contrary you use language, buzz words, ‘facts’ and tactics that out you clearly as not being scientific, skeptical, or rational.
There’s even a Bingo board of these kinds of tropes, you’ve been hitting every square.
Oh and your insistance on writing Shit without actually writing it sort of pings you as superstitious and thus probably creationist along with the other evidence.
A nice liberal believer who was intelligent would easily recognize that S#!T or Sh*T is easily read as shit, and thus people read the intention and thus is equivalent to saying it. If they meant to say shit they would say shit, if not they wouldn’t
However, someone who is concerned about following a rule on swearing would try to ‘cheat’ by meaning shit, and saying shit but not writing shit. This of course is utter shit.
From this alone we can make a very good guess that you follow a fiat based moral system (the intent or outcome isn’t what determines morality, it’s preset by a list of rules) which along with AIG and your other insipidity means that creaotard is a safe bet. Less likely but possible is a newage duntz or just stupid moderate christian. But I’m ruling that out since your opening language was that of confrontation and accusation, not falling in line with the more egalitarian beliefs.
Oh, and:
*Yes, it’s Myers, not “Meyers”.
*I am (unsurprisingly) not proficient in emphasis and the like with this system. Don’t know how to italicize and whatnot. Yes, I cap words for emphasis. Sue me.
*You all are still calling me names, creo-bot, god-bot. Can you get through your heads that this is not an either/or proposition?
*Yes, the man is Hawking, not “Hawkings”. Typos happen that shouldn’t.
Quit lying and bullshitting. Either a deity/creator exists or doesn’t. It is either one or the other. So put up evidence for a creator, or shut the fuck up about it. Any speculation without evidence is bullshit, and is done by godbots/creobots trying to sound sciency while ignoring their presuppositions. Any semi-intelligent person can see that, which leaves you out.
Asked and answered.
Walking like duck, whining like duck, blah blah blah
by system do you mean English?
A common behavior seem with religious cranks. Quack Quack Quack
You don’t want to get into a typo whine with me. Seriously.
@Nerd
Now to be fair it’s true it isn’t creao/science…since there’s other options of varying wrongness (ie a Hindu creationist or Moony).
But with him, he’s trying to fool us with Groucho glasses. It’s frankly insulting.
[ Ing, gotta take you up on something, since you went all political and shit( yep, that word, never been comfortable with it cause that’s what my folks taught me, but screw it). WND and Stormfront aint the same, schmuck. As a black conservative I resent that asininity.]
As a black you should resent WND.
Also, thank you for confirming. Isn’t it better now to not be hiding?
Conservative Christian. What a surprise.
Of course due to your past lying I highly doubt black. Not that there aren’t black conservatives, but that you as someone who is clearly comfortable trying to pass themselves off as a member of another group to lend yourself legitimacy…well yeah.
Have you been paying any attention to what the people here have actually said? Here is what the science says, basically: “The universe exists, the Big Bang happened and gave us the universe as we presently know it, we don’t know what the universe looked like before the Big Bang”. The theist inserts “Causeless first Cause” into the time period that we don’t know about, while the atheist inserts nothing. Those are not comparable positions, because the latter is a prime example of not leaping to conclusions and not adding unsupported ideology to the science. Theistic evolutionists do something similar in regards to evolution, accepting the science but still believing, without evidence of a God or evidence of divine guidance, that God divinely guided evolution. Bluster all you like about how much you appreciate science. You have still defended creationism, and still do so by pretending that those that don’t insert things into the scientific explanations are just as bad as those that do. The person who sincerely believes that is not a person that truly respects the power of scientific explanations.
Interesting. most people shrug off those sort of parental childish taboos around 14 or so…but not you. Also interesting how it’s protecting the WND that drives you to profanity you’re normally not comfortable with.
Aig, WND, quack quack quack.
But anyway, I tire of this. Paltry children, so petrified of the notion of a god you’ll tear down anyone or anything that reminds you in any way of your night terrors. F-in’ sad. Hell yeah, I’m skeptical of the tripe your selling, because it’s senseless. I gave you physicists who say it’s senseless, and you kind folk call me names? Get a frickin’ bib and a bottle while you’re at it.
And all this stupidity about some creationist this and creaobot that and similar mindless banality. Is that the best you got? That’s it? The other guy’s just gotta be talkin’ ’bout some God or sumpin’ ’cause I don’t understand otherwise. What the fuck?
Craziness. It comforts you to cast me as a creationist? Fine. I ask the questions you won’t and challenge the dogma you can’t on fear of ex-communication from the tribe.
So be it.
Simple, close-minded hillfolk.
Gee how could we ever get an idea like that
WND contributors: What stupid people think smart people sound like.
I believe the First Responders had it right on this one: Yawn. Stick the flounce this time.
This is why we think you’re a creationist; you’ve got that “spewing out unevidenced claims” bit down pat.
I can only speak for myself on the “night terrors,” (never had them), but no one here is petrified of the notion of a god. We’re bothered by idiots who want to mix up religious notions with science, and by the people who claim authority over us based on some imagined relationship with a being they can’t show evidence for, and whose qualities they can’t seem to agree on.
And no, cherry-picking one physicist from a vanishingly small minority that has abandoned everything they learned on the way to their degree is not convincing.
I might also point out that I haven’t called you any names, although given how you ignored my previous post, it seems to be the only way to get your attention.
“Hill-folk?” Really? Nice sweeping stereotype, there. Good to see you’ve got that critical thinking thing down so well.
The only child here is you. You keep making claims without evidence, and lack the honesty and integrity to shut the fuck up about them. I have no trouble sleeping. You want me to consider your imaginary deity to be real, show me the equivalent of the eternally burning bush. Or, be honest enough to acknowledge all you have is faith, and belief without evidence is a sign of delusional thinking.
Now, what evidence is required for you to give up the notion that your imaginary deity exists? Show how you are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between a discussion, where you could be wrong, and preaching, where you can’t possible be wrong. Still showing us what a pathetic and dishonest person you are.
I used to go to church, etc. Then I read the babble as a teenager. A leading cause of atheism is actually reading the babble and thinking about evidence for a deity. There isn’t any. And you are presenting no evidence for a deity, just the typical vacuuous claims like any godbot/creobot. If you don’t like being called that, stop sounding like that. Grow-up mentally and actually discuss your problem instead of name calling, which you resorted due to lack of a cogent argument.
Yet another creationist trope – if you’re not one, you’re certainly giving a convincing imitation. Neither of us were there to witness the American Civil War either. So fucking what? (BTW, I see you’re also too prissy to write “fucking” when that’s what you mean. Contemptible moral cowardice to add to the stupidity made plain by your inability to find out how to italicise.)
Both racist, both brainless. Close enough.
Damn, I always seem to get here after the flecks of spittle have begun to dry.
alexmartin, what were you trying to accomplish here? Your attempts at pretending to be science-minded were awkward and transparent, and the sudden bursts of flames at odd intervals didn’t help your cause.
Unless, that is, you were trying to portray creationists as dishonest and having severe self-control issues…was that your aim? Because if it was, good show. Otherwise, not so much.
lol
Wait, he’s serious? Wow…
Hey shithead Martin, tell us how to use flood geology to find oil, like real, honest deep-time geology is used presently. Or how “design” could be used to meaningfully predict anything in biology.
Until you can do that we’re safe to recognize you as nothing but a hateful bigot who doesn’t even want to persuade anybody to your lies, but only wants to spew hatred against those of us who understand science.
Glen Davidson
I do wonder if that’s a projection of their own mind, or the propagation of evangelical apologetics. What’s there to fear? And what does that have anything to do with the absurdity of Creationism?
Surely the best way to see whether or not the creation account of Genesis has any merit is whether or not it’s backed by the empirical evidence. God has nothing to do with it! It’s interesting that discussion of Creationism often hinge around God…
alexmartins, the HTML tags are above the comment window. Play around with them – you’ll soon notice that <b>this</b> turns into this, for example.
And if the Whirled Nut Daily is considered a flagship of conservative thought in the USA, as opposed to a painful embarrassment that is best ignored because of the lack of thought it so richly displays, your country is doomed, and much of the world with it.
Creationism is wrong; inflation theory may well be wrong; but to imply that both of them are equally wrong is wronger than both of them put together.
There is my line in the sand, Don’t accuse me again of being anti-science or anti-scientific.
actions speak louder than words.
especially those coming from an ignorant ass such as yourself.
stop projecting, and we’ll stop calling you on it.
Impossible, I know, so let’s skip to the end, where I give you some advice on flouncing, you pathetic wanker:
http://open.salon.com/blog/verbal_remedy/2009/04/08/dont_let_flouncing_make_your_ass_look_big
I gave you physicists who say it’s senseless
How about if I give you a biologist that says quantum theory is senseless.
The president of an entire country that says that the the germ theory of disease is senseless?
somehow, on any other aspect of science, I doubt you would find similar appeals to authority as you give us convincing.
but then, you ARE rather pathetic.
Will you answer a question for me before you go, Alex? As someone who wrote the above, do you actually think that it’s an original insult or even a good one? I mean, you’ve got to be aware that the claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a groupthinking dogmatist is about as ubiquitous as writing LOL, and as such, carries the same impact. I don’t care whether or not you spend your time on atheist blogs, evolutionist ones, Christian ones, Muslim ones, climate change ones, 9/11 truth ones, chihuahua fancier ones, or snickerdoodle recipe-only ones: some pissed off person has accused you of being a sheeple.
So, as you clearly think you’re a smart fella, and I’m happy to entertain that claim, I’d like to know why a smart fella would use the exact same content-free argument that everyone on the internet uses to insult their opponents.
I mean, if you’re really so objective and free of dogma, how come you were unable to come up with anything more original or effective than the oldest cliché on the internet?
point of interest: whining about the “something out of nothing” thing is so pre-1930’s. We now know that stuff pops into existence uncaused, just because it can.
I would rather be “childish” and at least be on the right path when it comes to acquiring knowledge than to be an “adult” who is easily lead astray by charlatans.
Alex is this the http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/16/a-little-comparative-religion-would-do-ken-ham-a-world-of-good/#comments You were talking about with AIG being not utter shit?
So finally, I will be as succinct as humanly possible.
I speak for myself and no one else and no institution of man.
I speak of a fundamental quandary for which none of you nor extant science has any answer, to my satisfaction at least. The core question, an important one to my mind.
As there is no First Cause, there can be no origin for anything. No eternally existing anything. To my putative deluded reasoning, there should be absolute void, an absence of anything, of energies or potentialities; an endless, unfathomable, expanseless void. Null, in entirety.
The only condition possible, as there is nothing to cause anything to be. No possibility for particles to emerge, no possibility for matter.
I understand that you cannot think this way or allow this concept to creep into your minds. You will, if you haven’t already, convince yourself that the proposition itself is folly. And why…? Only because things do exist, and no other reason. Petitio principii, circular reasoning par excellence, an unforgivable tautology. To my simple mind at least.
That is my position and mine alone.
What you know of science, noble though it may be, has no answer to this question. A question worth asking.
Have at it.
Odd how no one accused you of actually working for any organization or representing them.
A very suspicious denial.
Turtles all the way down
So finally, I will be as succinct as humanly possible.
liar.
there can be no origin for anything
do apples cause oranges?
Turtles all the way down
using the word “recursive” would have as succinct as humanly possible though.
;)
Who gives a shit what a presuppositionalist like you thinks? I don’t. Egotism run rampant.
Ever hear of vacuum quantum fluctuations? Obviously not, and don’t care as it doesn’t conform to to your presuppositions.
Been there, done that, no deities/creator required. As I said, who gives a shit what a delusional fuckwittted thinker like you believes. Deities/creators are presuppositions, not conclusions, unless you take the step to show how said creator came about. Nothing from you on that. We have your lying and bullshitting number.
All those comments, all those words, and it all comes down to an argument from ignorance.
And insisting that we’re just as ignorant as you (“What you know of science”).
Do you have a theory about dinosaurs?
phrasing is hilarious similar to the JAQing off of “history” channel shows.
Do you have a theory about dinosaurs?
He probably should get that cough looked at.
Thanks for answering my question in 111, alexwinter.
That you think the Cosmological Argument is “[yours] and [yours] alone” explains it perfectly.
I bet you invented fire all by yourself too.
What’s a “First Cause,” dumbass. Show your work, that is, actual meaningful evidence.
Now, just supposing that we end up with a “First Cause” of some meaning and evidence, what reason would we have to believe that it would be “God”? Just because some idiot like yourself defined God as the “First Cause that needs no beginning” or some other meaningless lie?
We don’t have a problem with there being large questions, just with fucking liars like you who pretend sans evidence that a certain fiction answers any remaining “large question.”
Glen Davidson
“And therefore, because science doesn’t have answer, I can believe random bullshit to be just as plausible until it does!”
And if the Big Bang is the Uncaused First Cause? Or if causality doesn’t work the simplistic way our everyday experience suggets, because physics can be fucking complicated? Your putative deluded reasoning means fuck all and remains a desperate leap to conclusions in order to have something you can cling onto when science suggests something more complicated, or gives no answer. It’s pathetic and presumptive, not logical.
Let these possibilities creep into your mind, for a moment:
-That we’ve heard all of these arguments for First Causes, etc. before.
-That we know the majority of arguments for creationism and why they are wrong.
-That we actually have good logically and scientifically supported reasons for believing as we do.
-That we have heard all of the pleas for Both Sides and Open Minds before.
-That these are the reasons we are “arrogant” and “strident”.
Many of us are former believers. Virtually all of us have heard the best schlock believers can offer regarding a First Cause as a trojan horse for Capital G monotheistic gods. The majority here are rather scientifically literate and poke holes in creationist canards for fun. And you barge in here, pretending that you offering something unique in defending the nonsense of a creationist organization merely for the sake of Teaching the Controversy. Which for you relates entirely the origin of the universe, and not at all to biological evolution. A confusion common of creationists, which you claim not to be. I really don’t think we are the ones who aren’t accurately reflecting upon the views of the Other Side, bucko.
And you think that AIG legitimately approaches that question? Well, that is where you fail.
Brownian earlier:
So, as you clearly think you’re a smart fella
He’s clearly demonstrated it’s a case of Dunning-Kruger at this point.
which also explains why he didn’t answer you.
he couldn’t.
Maybe when he’s done masturbating with his thesaurus he’ll break out the dictionary and look up what “succinct” means. Also, I find it funny that he neglected to actually state the question in question anywhere in his 200-word-long sneer.
Post #120.
I have been as generous with you as possible. Again, you demonstrate my point.
Like a thief in the temple, you pocket and try to sneak away a proposition you have yet to prove. You have a vacuum quantum fluctuation. Where in hell did you get the energy within the vacuum to fluctuate?
I knew you would be dishonest and an intellectual thief. Original thinker? Better minds than your own gave you your out, and you greedily swallowed the line all the way up to the boat.
Now, again, I will tell you that you cannot get something for nothing. You may not have a free lunch.
Every effect must have a cause. There is no cause. There can be no effect. No chain of causation. Stay true to what you profess.
There should be a Void. An absolute Void. Said another way for your delectation, a void that is absolute. There should be a totality of Nothing. No seething proto-state of infinite potentialities from which particles may “emerge” from a pseudo-vacuum; no thing whatsoever.
The concept is so simple to understand, so pure, I did not expect you to understand it.
And you are so simplistic, I could not expect you to understand why your concept is poorly applied to existence itself. It would be uncharacteristic of you.
And to all of you: keep shoveling your god-talk at me. What. Ever.
I put forth an absolute negative that by it’s very nature requires no proofs. Your starting point for “science” requires something for “science” to operate upon. I give you nothing whatsoever. Start with that and work your way up.
Start with your bootstraps.
The burden of proof is on you, and always has been. No sleight of hand will suffice to hoodwink.
Begin with Total Nothing. Maybe then you can talk.
The burden of proof is on the side that says “Well, we don’t actually know precisely how the universe came about, let’s wait for evidence”? And not on the side of “Universe exists, therefore universe must have been caused, therefore that cause is an eternal supernatural entity that has a special interest in life, especially human life”? That’s a rather novel approach to burden of proof, if I do say so myself.
I’m quite sure that you have the monopoly on nothing at this point. Yet it hasn’t stopped you from talking. Fancy that.
Fixed that for you. You haven’t said anything cogent at all.
Shows you don’t understand the concept. And zero point energy is not energyless. There are still quantum fluctuations. All you have is delusional thinking, and it shows.
No, that is you, your pseudo superior play-acting, and your lack of cogent arguments with evidence.
That isn’t you or any godbot. Deities are the refuge of the lazy thinker. Smart folks realize that, and find better arguments, and evidence.
Assertion without evidence. Which is why we consider you a liar, bullshitter, and delusional fool. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And all your assertions are dismissed as bullshit.
Absolutes are terms used by presuppositionalists, not thinkers. You don’t think.
Since you don’t understand it, and have no evidence for it, we can’t figure out your delusional thinking. You aren’t as smart as you pretend to be. That was obvious to us here from your first inane post.
Oh, and still no evidence or arguement for how your deity/creator came to be. TSK, TSK. Fatal stupid and ignorant flaw.
Lying liar keeps lying.
I have been as generous with you as possible. Again, you demonstrate my point.
if your point is to claim recursive arguments are unique and worth asking, then your point is useless and inane.
otherwise, you’re just rambling inanities and incoherence.
I’d suggest seeing someone about that. It might be treatable.
Begin with Total Nothing
it’s already been done.
you ignored it because you don’t understand it.
here’s one for you:
start with a sperm and an egg, and then get us to you, now.
show your work.
Hung by your own rope.
There is no cause or origin for God. Granted. As that is the case, there can be no God.
Granted. There is no God.
Do you see where I am going, Nerd?
Go on, take the rope.
It’s like someone made a program to turn platitudes and depitys into sentences.
Um yeah…you sure showed him?
And why are you talking like a 14 year old Dungeon Master?
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Just because the average energy is something doesn’t mean you can’t get fluctuations in energy, it just means the larger the energy fluctuation, the less time you can have it for.
There is no cause or origin for any god, nor is there a need for an explanation of such because there is no evidence for any god.
People investigate the origin of the universe on the other hand because there is evidence that this exists. Unlike any god.
Yes begin each day with Total Nothing. It takes over 30 bowls of your normal corp crisp cereal to get the amount of bullshit in just one bowl of Total Nothing!
Oh, and AM, total energy of the universe by the latest estimates: zero. From zero to zero…
Speaking of rope:
Tell that to all the nutjobs out there who tell us that we need to prove God doesn’t exist in order to believe that It doesn’t! I mean, the absolute gall of people, asking for absolute proof of an absolute negative.
I eagerly await your hedging. Or completely missing the point. Or ignoring my post altogether. It’s all very heartwarming, any way it goes.
What rope. You have nothing but uninformed and meaningless blather, full of bullshit and illogical thinking, meaning nothing. What a prime example of Dunning Kruger in action.
Do you see where I am going, Nerd?
yeah, we all do.
but you can stop yourself from ending up in an assylum, if you seek medical help now!
seriously, your ignorance of cosmology alone is so astounding as to be the only reason anyone wonders what you’re going to post next.
In fact, your ignorance is so great, it’s obviously what keeps you thinking you have some profound insight into things.
This syndrome has been so well documented, it even has a name:
Dunning-Kruger.
..after the two primary researchers who studied it and publicized the results.
now, as I said before, all we can really help you out with here is simply giving you ideas on how to properly flounce, when you inevitably do, because you think we are all so
Close Minded.
hattip to sketch.
Of course, that’s not where you’re beginning, is it? You’re allowed to posit a universe that begins with an eternal, intelligent creature who “just is,” but science has to start with a nothingness that may never have existed?
Wow, that’s convenient. Your argument is simple and pure and requires no evidence.
You know why science doesn’t have all the answers? Because answers are fucking hard. Unless, of course, you get to make shit up and believe it. And when you require no evidence, that’s what you’re doing.
Of course this asswipe hasn’t responded to me yet, so I’m just wasting my time, apparently.
(whack whack whack) Is this thing on?
I’m not sure he responds to anyone except to patronise them feralboy12, even his ‘apology’ to me was immensely patronising. I am not ‘madam’ either.
But yes, I’m agreeing with the conclusion that it’s a classic case of Dunning Kruger effect.
I see.
In a few minutes, you’ll need a sock or a rag or something to wipe up the mess with.
Whether it happens to be on or off, this alexmartin unit is clearly defective. It’s getting to the point where I don’t think it is displaying Dunning-Kruger as much as it is failing the Turing Test.
As to the question posed by the OP…
should PZ care whether Gibberson shows well against Ham?
yes.
why?
Uncle Karl actually shows signs of awakening from his religious coma.
He has abandoned (and been thrust out of) the Biologos project.
I see a glimmer of hope there.
Ham, OTOH, just wants to rape piglets.
gotta root for uncle Karl in that matchup.
So do you want to explain why you felt the need to misrepresent yourself at all?
Also note, there’s no defense of the “I’m black…really…REALLY!” cause you have been lying about a lot.
Insult World Net Daily, apparently that does it. People tend to get upset when their religion is challenged after all.
Binary logic as a defense against the insuperable. All this god talk. Gibberish.
I don’t care about no god. but you people, though, y’all are obsessed (add italics for emphasis).
F*#k–oops, correction–fuck all that. Give it a rest.
The only post meriting a rebuttal is #140, The good Dr. Ariaflame, to whom I’ll say that you need a universe for a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to apply to. Certainly.
You need water and/or soil to grow a plant. You need matter to formulate a universe.
Yes, you investigate what exists. You speculate about how it might have been before it existed. Well and good.
There should be nothing whatsoever to exist to contingently bring you about to investigate it.
All this casuistry concerning what exists because it exists doesn’t begin to explain in even naturalistic terms the reason why it(italics added for emphasis) or anything should exist in the first place.
I don’t say that goddidit. That’s not my issue. But to repeat:
If-
There is no cause or origin for god,
Then-
God cannot exist
Therefor-
If there is no cause or origin for energy/matter
Then-
Energy/matter cannot exist.
I expressed all this in the beginning of my idiotic harangue, if you will, and the issue remains for me to this minute.
You might blithely accept that you could get something for nothing at no cost whatsoever but I.Don’t.Accept.That. (more poetic license.)
Dig?
Funny how alexmartin is using words games while physicists use mathematics.
I will.
Whoa, existential dread, dude.
Good thing we have one of those.
first sentence, and already wrong; as I said, we already know uncaused things happen all the time.
I’ll spare myself the rest of what follows in that post.
to put it in terms your peanut-sized brain will understand: from the future. seriously, you’re arguing as if the knowledge of physics hasn’t changed since the 30’s.
you can tell us all you want, but it’s not going to get any truer for the retelling.
still wrong
actually, what you’re giving is a counterfactual, since there is something, not nothing. There’s a difference, which you’d know if you actually knew what you’re talking about instead of performing cargo cult science.
yeah no, that’s not how it works. the Null Hypothesis is that god doesn’t exist, but there is no disproof of god; not even one contrived by you for the purpose of this mental masturbation you’re performing here. Uncaused events happen; lack of cause is therefore not disproof of existence.
you really don’t understand a goddamn thing about modern physics, do you.
Jadehawk, just as there is no free lunch in politics, there is no free lunch in physics. It really is the same principle.
If-
Your premise is not true, and your logic is not valid,
Then-
Your argument is not sound.
Now go away. You’re getting failsauce all over the place.
you know, I wish he’d even be able to reason t that level, but even that is beyond him. Apparently the concept of paying for a meal AFTER eating it is foreign to him (so is the concept of a really cheap lunch (say, a 25cent packet of ramen) you don’t have to pay for for a very long time, if at all).
:-p
Now that is some hard core science!
alexmartin, why do you want the answer to be God?
I wonder if he’s also one of the poor deluded fools that think the laws of thermodynamics prove that CO2 doesn’t cause climate change. I spent far too much time trying to educate one of those.
The Second Law Of Thermodynamics is Magic!
Give it a rest.
the only thing you’ve said that made any sense, and you are unable to take your own best advice.
sad, pathetic, little person.
First Cause, ergo Creation?
The interesting thing about first cause arguments is that even if you accept that there’s such thing as a first cause, in no way does that entail anything remotely like a god, let alone the God of Christianity.
This is what’s known as a gap argument, that even if the argument follows that there’s still a big gap between that and what God is. Deism is perfectly compatible with the first cause argument, for example, where the prime mover need not interfere with the affairs of humanity. But it need not be personal either, as this notion of personal causation is one of the contingencies the argument is trying to explain. Indeed, first cause argument is perfectly compatible with the physics we have now – there are several models that can explain the universe as it is now without any need for outside agency.
But the question is, why do we have to start at absolutely nothing? How do we know that something is not the natural state of things? Heck, you’ve even invoked something to explain how something can come from nothing, so it’s hardly a fair argument that you can invoke something while demanding that others can’t. You’re challenge is building in an impossibility that you won’t take yourself. What it looks like you are doing is putting forward a model with God doing everything, taking away God but expecting an equivalent to fill that God-shaped hole. It’s a very dishonest tactic of rhetoric!
You might blithely accept that you could get something for nothing at no cost whatsoever but I.Don’t.Accept.That. (more poetic license.)
that’s because:
you.are.a.moron.
Yawn, moron proving himself to be the least intelligent and least cogent person on the thread. Philosophical sophistry, presupposition, handwaving, ignorance, and special pleading. Not one iota of coherence or evidence. Sounds like other trolls with similar problems. Boring, but loud.
You’re still too stupid and lazy to find out how to italicise, I see. Your complete ignorance of science has been evident throughout.
Tell me, why should we take seriously the burblings of someone who has proved themselves to be stupid, lazy, and ignorant?
Entertaining. The guy defending AIG and arguing for an eternal First Cause mocking us for bringing up God? And reiterating that he simply will not accept that physics presents cases of uncaused causes and something from nothing? I think we’ve got ourselves an aspiring rodeo clown. Or just an assclown. Some sort of clown, that’s for sure.
I think he’s working on being (Mythies) Buster’s stunt double.
Also deceitful and hateful.
♪Put them all together they spell GODBOT♫
♪A word that means a turd to meeeee♫