WE Blog

Tonight, Wednesday, November 12th, we should see a large Full moon rise over the eastern horizon at sundown. Actually, calendars show tomorrow as the official day for the Full moon but the actual time when the Moon will be opposite side of the Earth from the Sun will be about midnight plus or minus for various time zones.

Of course, if the Moon would be precisely opposite side of the Earth from the Sun, we would have an eclipse of the Moon but it will be slightly offset one way or the other. So, no eclipse tonight.

So lets hope tonight is a cloudless night over southern Kansas.

Good Morning Maggie. Beautiful day on our little corner of this unique island of life that God built and sustains for us.

Here is something that might surprise you. I think that evolution is true!

Now common descent is, of course, a whole other matter. It is no more than speculation. In fact it didn’t happen.

Well, at least one thing we can agree on this fine morning.

Irreducible complexity. The cell is incredibly complex, with interdependent systems that Darwin had no idea existed. Did you know the flagellum of one of the simplist lifeforms (bacteria) has 30 moving parts that must be assembled in exact order. How’d that develop? Your only answer to that problem is “billions and billions of years”. Chance. Luck.

No Maggie. God.

Funny thing outlander, Behe disproved his own claim about irreducible complexity in the trial.

http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/10/behe_disproves.html

When even the guy who originates the claim and writes books about the subject has to admit, since he’s under oath, that he’s full of crap, then you don’t have much of a case.

But if all the creationists have is an argument that has been disproved for years then it appears that evolution still has no challengers.

“Nope outlander, there are many instances of flagellum existing quite well without all those 30 moving parts.”

True, but it does not answer the question of how flagellum with 30 moving parts evolved. Bait and switch doesn’t answer the question.

“The problem is you, like Behe, refuse to accept the numerous scientific studies on the issue.”

Double lie. I’ll accept any scientific study. Accept it for exactly what it is. Now, show me a scientific study that proves a flagellum with 30 moving parts could have evolved. You don’t have one.

“This was all covered in the Dover trial and Behe admitted he had no evidence to support him.”

No. No it wasn’t ‘all covered’ in the Dover trial. Behe defended his study for exactly what it was. Did it prove ID? No. It never mentioned ID. Did Behe admit he had no evidence to support him? No. All you have is hope and lies to defend your position.

Here’s a quote from the trial:
“Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”

Another lie. Go back to the flagellum. There is not one ’scientific paper’ that proves any thing of the sort without incredible assumptions.

The Dover trial proved nothing
__________________________________________

No, Maggotpunk, my delusional friend when science searches for the truth of life it will always fail because it must ignore the only Truth.

Does It Work? Channel 12 does a feature on their 10PM news checking out claims. Tonight they will be looking at that “Water-Fuel” gizmo that Franklin/Econ101/Paul was touting as the answer to the energy crisis. It will be interesting to see what they say.

Hank whines
“Another lie. Go back to the flagellum. There is not one ’scientific paper’ that proves any thing of the sort without incredible assumptions.”

In a sense you are correct, there isn’t one scientific study that disproves irreducible complexity, there are numerous studies.

Let’s listen to Behe who said at the Dover trial, “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”

So you have Behe saying there is no support for his position, and you have the creationists on this forum proving him correct. So you have nothing in favor of creationism. Now let’s look at the studies that disprove Behe’s assertion about the flagellum.

First off there isn’t one brand of flagellum. Creationists seem to avoid this fact, it’s like claiming there is only one brand of eye and all others don’t count because such recognition is inconvenient for the creationist. Simpler forms of flagellum exist so it’s not surprising that, through natural selection, complexity arises. So the flagellum argument just goes to prove the irrefutable fact of evolution.

The germ Salmonella has 10 elements in common with the flagellum. According to creationists this would mean Salmonella cannot exist because without all 30 components, as in the flagellum, such an organism could not function. Remember that next time you are eating undercooked meat and get sick.

One scientist, Ken Miller (and a Christian too which should annoy fundies who believe you can’t accept the irrefutable fact of evolution and still be a Christian), writes an article that soundly debunks the notion of irreducible complexity. Miller was a witness at the Dover trial and helped make Behe and the creationists look foolish.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Science wins again, the creationists still have nothing to support their myth.

“not surprising that, through natural selection, complexity arises.” —

Yes it is surprising. Absolutly nothing in the theory of evolution accounts for increasing complexity. In fact, the more complex, the higher the risk of extinction. Evolutionists once tried to account for it with the “organizing principle” which was the same thing as creationism.

Yes, organisms evolve, but is a poodle more complex than a wolf? Is the beak of a finch more complex than the beak of another finch?

As I have preached for so long, there is “design” in organisms. I can’t account for it, and neither can evolution, nor can creationists. It’s a mystery, something wonderful, and for the time being beyond our comprehension.

“Any form of energy can be used to break the bond, including heat in the presence of a catylyst.”

That would be fascinating to melt your engine in order to heat the catalyst, in the case of sodium hydroxide, to separate the water molecules. So you’d be burning a lot of gasoline to overheat the process in order to save gas by producing a small amount of hydrogen. The net fuel economy would be lower, especially considering how you’d need to run your AC full blast to keep from frying. The method of using the sun’s light and heat to create energy is commonly used in massive solar fields which reflect the light upon a tower holding the catalyst. Nah, using electricity is a much better bet.

“Yes it is surprising. Absolutly nothing in the theory of evolution accounts for increasing complexity. In fact, the more complex, the higher the risk of extinction. Evolutionists once tried to account for it with the “organizing principle” which was the same thing as creationism.”

Genetic recombination, it’s the basis for evolutionary theory and it accounts for the changes quite nicely. I suppose if you reject the entire theory of genetics then you could make such a claim but it’s not grounded in reality.

No, Maggot, you’d be using the waste heat of the engine to break the bond. In the presence of a proper catalyst, the bond breaks at lower temperatures. I didn’t say it would work. I said it probably wouldn’t work.

“There is another means to use heat to generate hydrogen. ” — wrong

There are many ways to break the bond, chemical, even algae can do it. Slime-mobiles, anyone?

Hank, it looks as if both you and Maggotpunk both believe in something that cannot be PROVEN…. So, why dont you stop fighting over it, and just agree to disagree… Things will all work out in the end!! Thats why they call me a Pan Millenialist… Everything will Pan Out in the end!! LOL

“No, Maggot, you’d be using the waste heat of the engine to break the bond. In the presence of a proper catalyst, the bond breaks at lower temperatures. I didn’t say it would work. I said it probably wouldn’t work.”

Steam isn’t hydrogen, it’s still H2O. I suppose you could create a steam engine in your car but that’s rather pointless and unnecessary.

SolDevVB
Posted November 12, 2008 at 9:53 am | Permalink
is Glenn Beck gone: if so — Haw, Haw, Haw.

He moved to FoxNews.
===============================================

Thats probably a good idea… He should feel more at home there… where he can be safe and secure, and away from the Eeeeeeevil Libs!! ROFL!!!

Hank whines:
“You begin your screed with a lie…”

There you go, whining again. It doesn’t take long to reduce a creationist to whining. You wouldn’t need to if you had facts on yourself. You are the only one bringing up the subject of your particular god. I don’t have to disprove your unsupported claim that there are gods. That just shows a weakness of your character and intellect. I only brought up the subject of the irrefutable fact of evolution, something which has yet to be challenged (unless you could whining a challenge). Really, I don’t need to disprove your imaginary god anymore than I need to disprove the divine existence of Kimon Daikonjin.

Maggotpunk
Posted November 12, 2008 at 5:59 am | Permalink

Once again, more evidence comes out supporting the irrefutable fact of evolution. Creationists still refuse to accept reality and live in their world of denial.
________________________________________________
Maggotpunk
Posted November 12, 2008 at 10:01 am | Permalink

. . .You are the only one bringing up the subject of your particular god.
________________________________________________

Do you really not see the incongruity of these two statements?

Really?

Do you think that there is anyone on this BLOG that does not see that you are using various scientific studies to attack the faith of creationists?

You sir are a liar. I didn’t need science to prove it.

You are pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.

nitwit

Beber, amuse me by telling me what your catalyst actually is.

Stolen from an anonymous website who’s domain I do not wish to pollute with the precense of hate-America-first neo-Marxists.

“This country is becoming so divided in basic values and polarized in philosophy that I can see no clear path to a reconciliation of these two opposing camps.

Continued coexistence would require not compromise but submission because this confrontation involves diametrically opposed principles… and I don’t cotton to compromising principles. As I’ve said, compromise of principle is no compromise—its surrender and traditionalists are unwilling to surrender their principles.”

to me, the BIG question has always been: Why didnt we invade Saudi Arabia??? nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia!!

Oh, yea, I forgot… Bush is in tight with the gubment of Saudi Arabia….

Which NeoCON you trying to protect today, Heckler??? LOL

Heckler —

Sounds like some of the “fictional” propaganda that is the foundational idea behind the plot of the “Turner Diaries”… Hmmmmm….

I wondered how long it would take for the Far Right to determine that we needed to wage a Civil War, if a Black man should be elected to be President… Only took 8 days… amazing show of loyalty to the Nation!! ONLY took 8 days!!

Why am I not surprised??

Missing the Joe the Plumber thread – well I have a little news about Joe.

”
Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to
come and fix it.

Joe drives to Obama’s house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood
and where it’s clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 (I think
its down to$100,000 now) per year.

Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that
contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama,
who is standing near the door, that it’s an easy repair that will take less
than 10 minutes.

Obama asks Joe how much it will cost.

Joe immediately says, “$9,500.”

“$9,500?” Obama asks, stunned. “But you said it’s an easy repair!”

“Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than
$250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than
that for free,” explains Joe. “It’s always been my philosophy. As
a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and
it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way.
It’s known as ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act of 2008.’ Surprised you
haven’t heard of it, senator.”

In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there’s no way he’s paying that much
for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves.

Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for
another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone
out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe’s price, Obama does nothing.

The leak under Obama’s sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.

A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the
sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and
there’s a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with
him to return.

Joe goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says
“Let’s see – this will cost you about $21,000.”

“A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!” Obama quickly fires back.

Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. “Well, because of the
‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act,’ a lot of rich people are learning how to
fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free
plumbing I’m doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result,
the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.

“Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the
group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there’s a long
waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers
out of business, and they’re not being replaced – nobody is going into the
plumbing business because they know they won’t make any money. I’m
hurting now too – all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay
their fair share.”

Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: “Of course you’re hurting,
Joe! Don’t you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own
plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services,
you’ll be broke, and then what will you do?”

Joe immediately replies, “Run for president, apparently.”

“The Turner Diaries: A New War Looms
Obama Candidacy & Immigration Could Spark Race War
By Gary “The G-Man” Toms, published May 25, 2007
Published Content: 93 Total Views: 137,226 Favorited By: 85 CPs
Contact Subscribe Add to Favorites Embed:
Rating: 4.4 of 512345 Font Font
close windowAfter the attack on the World Trade Center, the Justice Department, led by John Ashcroft at the time, issued a number of stringent policies to deal with terrorists and the threat of terrorism in the United States. Many of the policies set forth were submitted to the Congress, and they have come to be known as The Patriot Act. As a result, law enforcement agencies on many levels have been granted an enormous sense of power and authority in a never-ending attempt to thwart extremists and radicals from engaging in further acts of destruction on American soil.”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/254585/the_turner_diaries_a_new_war_looms.html

Good morning Capt.,

1. God said, Let there be light . . . And God saw that the light was good.

He didn’t know that the light would be good even though He made it? He had to see it to recognize it as good.
_____________________________________________
You infer a question where none is implied.
_____________________________________________
2. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Then not until the fourth day 10 verses later does God make two great light–the greater light to rule the day the lesser light to rule the night.

So how does one have light and days with no sun?
_____________________________________________
You assume the sun is tha only source of light.
_____________________________________________
3. In verse 26-7, God said, Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness . . . so God created humankind in his image . . . male and female he created THEM.

Wait a minute, he created them? Where are they? Adam doesn’t come along until Chapter 2, verse 7.
_____________________________________________
Human kind is a general reference, Adam is a specific fact.
_____________________________________________

I beleive, based on past posts, that you are a practicing Christian. Maybe you should go to Bible studies that provide answers, instead of questions.

I have offered to discuss these things over lunch and even buy. . .if you have sincere questions.

I have some very good books on Genesis, pro and con concerning a literal interpretation. I could probably argue either side more effectively than most. Only one interpretation is right.

With faith I believe in one. Without faith, neither can be defended.

Gene–

Hey, buddy.

Thanks a lot for delivering your state for Obama.

When Washington went blue, it was all over for McCain.

Dear Maggotpunk,

You’re losing the H2 argument. You really want to start on God?

nitwit

Only one interpretation is right.

But, Hank.

You don’t believe in interpretation. You just “read it and believe it.”

Here’s another one:

Eve tells the Serpent that God said that if she eats from the Tree she will “surely die.” The Serpent says, “nah, you won’t die.”

Turns out, the Serpent was right. On the surface of it, it looks like God lied.

I mean Eve did die, but not for many years later. And there’s no indication she died from eating the fruit.

In fact, God has to take away the Tree of Life to make sure they don’t live forever.

Come on, Capn.,

Are you looking for answers, or do you just want to play gotcha?

I said I could defend either side. Better than most. What purpose would I have in playing gotcha with you?

What is your position? Is Genesis a lie? Or do you merely need to be enlightened in order to interpret the scriptures to agree with an ever changing world view?

Lunch?

Capn, perhaps Hank believes, as the Bible says, that the moon is it’s own source of light and not merely a reflection of the sun’s light. It’s utterly pathetic that something someone learns in grammar school is still not known by Hank.

Here ya go Heckler… You should really love this one >>>>

http://thejewishconspiracyexposed.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/the-turner-diaries-is-becoming-reality/

“Sorry I don’t throw the “and then a miracle happens” into my arguments.” –maggot

What you do is disregard any evidence contrary to your preconceptions.

Correct, Gene.

Afghanistan had to be knocked off for not delivering Al Qaeda as we demanded. No one that I know opposed war in Afghanistan.

In fact, I thought Rumsfeld was rather too cautious in deploying our troops there. That’s how we missed Bin Laden at Tora Bora.

This is a point you CONs conveniently overlook when you call us “terrorist lovers” for opposing Bush’s illegal, immoral, and just plain stupid war in Iraq.

BlueJay–

You’re right to a point.

If you read the Bible “literally” like the fundamentalists do, then you end up with a distorted and perverse view of religious truth.

A vengeful God who seems more interested in turning cities to ash than hearing their prayers . . .

Maggotpunk,

I see you have stolen MonkeyHawks debate tactics:

You make a claim and then when someone disagrees with you, call them a whiner.

When they try to point out they were not whining, but making a counter argument, call them a whiner again.

You only continue to show what an idiot you really are Maggotpunk.

beber — My old Dad, now deceased, was a lifetime mechanic… he was always toying around with ideas on how to make gas engines more efficient… so, I sort of get where you are coming from…

My problem was also with what you planned to use as the catalyst in your plan??

I have a few ideas of my own re: fuel efficiency, and alternative possibilities… I might post my favorite later…

Maggotpunk,

Show me where the Bible says the Moon “produces” it’s own light?

So Iraq’s state sponser of terrorism was “good” terrorism???

Even though several high ranking Dems declared them a state sponser of terrorism, mass graves, rape and torture rooms, they were “good” terrorists???

But because the nation of Irag did not attack us it was wrong for us to invade their country. But yet it was okay for us to invade a country that had NOT attacked us, but because that country did not bow to our demands, that was okay???
Did we follow all the diplomatic channels??
Did we give an embargo a chance?
Had we tried sanctions?
Did we give the UN a fair shot?

What about Iran, hasn’t most of the world DEMANDED that they not get a nuclear weapon because we are concerned about their intentions with nuclear material. Should we invade because the government has not bowed to our demands?

That Afghanistan has NO WMD’s that we were concerned may end up in terrorist hands but simply their country was allowing a terrorist group to be maintained and train there, THAT was good enough for us to invade their soveign nation?

But Iraq, we know at one time HAD WMD (including several high ranking Dems) and wished the US harm, and were a state sponser of terrorism, we were okay with.

And I thought before the war started that we DEMANDED that Saddam Hussein step down as the head of that government who was sponsering terrorism.

Good morning Chas,

‘Scaling the Secular City’ by Moreland

A very good book for Christian apologetics. Not necessarily a defense of Genesis per se, but pretty much defends a literal interpretation.

I have a few others on my book shelf. If you are really interested I’ll list them tonight. It’ll be later though.

Nathan asks:
“Show me where the Bible says the Moon “produces” it’s own light?”

Sure, the Atheist will educate you on the Bible. Try looking at Gen. 1:16. The moon isn’t a light, it’s a reflector of light, produced by the sun. Simple astronomy. You might want to check out Hullin 60b for even more absurdity about the sun and the moon and the role your god gave them.

Maggotpunk,

Your argument was that the Bible was incorrect in saying that the moon “produces” light.

The verse you referenced made no such claim.

Steam isn’t hydrogen, it’s still H2O. I suppose you could create a steam engine in your car but that’s rather pointless and unnecessary.
————-

How about a 6-cycle gasoline and water injection engine?

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/FREE/60222004/1024
“Bruce Crower has lived, breathed and built hot engines his whole life. Now he’s working on a cool one — one that harnesses normally-wasted heat energy by creating steam inside the combustion chamber, and using it to boost the engine’s power output and also to control its temperature.”

Charles. Listening to maggot punk on science is like believing chicken lady about farming.

I believe I stated it would be possible to use the heat of the engine in the presence of a catalyst to break the hydrogen/o2 bond. Magnesium will work. Molten magnesium mixed with water will produce hydrogen for example. The melting point if I remember is about 650 degrees C.

“Hydrogen and oxygen are obtained from water using a multi-step circulatory process using iron compounds and chlorine as adjuvants. Using three beds, respectively containing magnesium chloride, iron oxide and cuprous chloride, and by a four-step process involving passing steam through the magnesium bed, carbon monoxide through the iron bed, carbon dioxide through the copper bed, and steam through the iron bed one obtains hydrogen and oxygen as end products and is left with the starting materials in the respective beds. An efficiency of about 60% can be achieved by the process. ”

The above is another way although not exactly applicable.

“use heat and zinc which joins with the oxygen in the water resulting in free hydrogen, this is a reversible process where the zinc is merely a catalyst …
”

and another.

There are about a billion ways to make H and O2 from H2O

“The engine heat should at least convert some of the water to hydrogen and oxygen”

Nope. Temps not high enough. Do a Gibbs Free Energy calculation.

HOWEVER – with nuclear (and some real good ceramics) it might be possiblt to get T high enough for -TdS to swamp dH.

“I’m hauling hay tomorrow. Call me if you can join in on the fun” — HLP

Note the absence of the word “lift.”

Maggotpunk,

Calling something a light, doesn’t mean that it “produces” light.

Your argument is based on an unproven assertion.

First you must prove how the simple act of calling something a light means you are claiming it is “producing” it’s own light. You can’t do that.

Either way, we are talking about a book which was not written to describe how the moon and sun scientifically worked, only that they existed and were a light.

The moon is a source of light. It is a light in the night sky. It does provide light at night. Calling it a light doesn’t mean you are claiming how it acheives this.

Your entire argument is based on an unproven assumption that by calling it a light it is being claimed that it “produces” it’s own light.

That is simply not true.

You are the only one twisting words and making things up here.

O.K., yes, bth, if it is consumed in the reaction, you are correct. See how easy that is.

No Nathan, the moon isn’t a light, it’s a reflector, just like your mirror. Your mirror doesn’t produce light, the moon doesn’t produce light, there is no chemical reaction producing the light. If there is no sun then there is nothing reflecting off the moon and it’s dark. Perhaps you might wonder why there are some nights where the moon is full and where it isn’t?

It’s pretty simple but I’m not surprised this basic concept is above you.

“Beber, since you actually presented a catalyst I can respond. Do you realize your car’s engine doesn’t get up to 650 degrees C? Thanks for proving you don’t know what you are talking about.” — maggot

The internal combustion engine does away with the need for an external heat source … mean temperature of gases in cylinder during combustion stroke 820 °C …
http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Physics_A2/options/Module_7/Topic_4/internal_combustion_engines.htm – 17k – Cached – Similar pages

It is I who is done wasting my time with you Maggot.

Maggotpunk,

The moon is a light. The mere fact that it technically is only reflecting light doesn’t mean that you can’t call it a light.

Once again, you argument was that the Bible claims the moon “produces” light. You have yet to prove that.

No offence to beber. ;)

I TAUGHT chemistry at the University level.

Do you want a cookie? Can you create a data entry screen that updates via AJAX and a LINQ to SQL data source?

Maggot, you’re a ding dong!

“It is I who is done wasting my time with you Maggot.”

Fascinating. So now the heat produced by the explosion of the gasoline is waste heat although that is what powers the engine. Just fascinating. So you’ll completely make the engine functionless by releasing that confined heat into a larger space in order to heat magnesium. So your goal is to make the engine absolutely inefficient in order to improve gas mileage by creating a tiny bit of hydrogen.

Just fascinating.

BTW – isn’t AJAX a cleanser? Does it keep the computer clean?

Good, then you can be the expert, bth. I took Chem through Physical Chemistry, but that was like in the early 60s. I can see from the Wiki that Gibbs must have been a next step, or more likely, something I might have dealt with in higher level physics courses.

Anyway, I shouldn’t have stated the original as a given, but when Maggot took me on I realized there was no way I could lose even if I was wrong. I realize I’m now playing in a different league, and I defer.

beber posted November 12, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Haven’t any of you ever take a chemistry course?
—————-

Yes, but I wasn’t replying to the H2 issue. This is ‘open thread’

Maggotpunk commented about steam at 9:53 am, and I posted a link re a 6-cycle gasoline and water injection engine

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060224/FREE/60222004/1024

Maggotpunk,

There are various uses of the word produce. I suggest you try using a dictionary.

The act of reflecting the light is how the moon produces light.

I have never claimed that God only produced two lights either. Neither does the Bible. Nice strawman and it has nothing to do with how wrong your original argument continues to be.

No problem Sol. My point was in answer to beber where is WAS relevant.

My biggest claim to fame in computers was in almost saving the universe from the internet (ARPANet) back in the early 70s. I should have killed it when I had the chance!

dG = dH – TdS
—————–

I hate math with letters. I always forget to carry the ‘j’.

Like this blog, the Moon produces no light.. just a little heat.

(One might argue minor radioactive decay of atoms in the moon creates emissions of one sort or another.)

I should have killed it when I had the chance!

But then I would have to pay for my porn :~<

Hey you guys, why don’t you try being creative?

Surely there is another completely pointless argument that you could find to argue about ad nauseam.

My final words on this subject, when you are arguing with a creationist, you are not arguing with someone who observes the same rules you do. Thus, doing so is a complete and utter waste of time.

Carry on.

Nathan, here’s a link for you:
http://www.dictionary.com

Look up the terms light and mirror. It’s pretty simple.

It’s fun at times to argue about something that is not political. I think Mr. Gibb’s equations qualify.

Maggotpunk,

Looking up the terms ‘light’ and ‘mirror’ at dictionary.com do nothing to prove your argument.

“Looking up the terms ‘light’ and ‘mirror’ at dictionary.com do nothing to prove your argument.”

Except for the fact that they show my definitions are correct, and yours aren’t. First you failed at science, now you fail at grammar. Anything else you care to fail at?

He didn’t have to apologize. He spoke the truth:

“In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week, Broun admitted to calling the future commander-in-chief a ‘Marxist’ at a recent Rotary club meeting, and said Obama has expressed support for policies similar to those of Hitler.

“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Broun told the AP. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may– may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”

Broun was specifically referring to a July speech by Obama, where the then-Democratic presidential nominee said he supports a civilian force helping the military when it comes to national security: “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the military],” Obama said in the speech that was largely a call to national service.

Responding to those comments, Broun told the AP Monday: “That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun added. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”

And occasional brief flashes of light have been reported by lunar observers. They are not well documented and may be simply an outgassing (also observed in these blogs) or the result of meteor impacts.

Cosmos,

The perfect Bio/Eco-Vehicle or BEV has been around for many many years. It requires a plant energy source and requires H2O. The down side to the BEV is that it can only reach speeds of 30-40 mph and has payload limitations. This fascinating vehicle is known as a Horse.

Maggotpunk,

The argument was not about if your definitions were correct or not.

The argument was that you claimed the Bible said the moon “produced” light.

The Bible made no such claim, your argument failed.

Then I said that either way, one could argue that by reflecting light the moon does indeed produce light.

Which, if you took the time to look up the word “produce” at dicionary.com you would see is correct.

Even Ben agreed that the moon could be called a light.

Then you claimed that the Bible said God “only” made two lights.

Once again, you were wrong.

Nope Nathan, the Midrash is quite clear that the moon produces it’s own light. No doubt you’ll go to your grave thinking the moon produces it’s own light. How odd it must be to live in your world.

Here’s more of Nathan’s strange beliefs.

” At first the sun and the
moon enjoyed equal powers and prerogatives. The moon spoke to God, and said: “O
Lord, why didst Thou create the world with the letter Bet?” God replied: “That it might
be known unto my creatures that there are two worlds.” The moon: “O Lord, which of
the two worlds is the larger, this world or the world to come?” God: “The world to come
is the larger.” The moon: “O Lord, Thou didst create two worlds, a greater and a lesser
world; Thou didst create fire and water, the water stronger than the fire, because it can
quench the fire; and now thou hast created the sun and the moon, and it is becoming
that one of them should be greater than the other.” Then spake God to the moon: “I
know well, thou wouldst have Me make Thee greater than the sun. As a punishment I
decree that thou mayest keep but one-sixtieth of thy light.” The moon made
supplication: “Shall I be punished so severely for having spoken a single word?” God
relented: “In the future world I will restore thy light, so that thy light may again be as the
light of the sun.” The moon was not yet satisfied. “O Lord,” she said, “and the light of
the sun, how great will it be in that day?” Then the wrath of God was once more
enkindled: “What, thou still plottest against the sun? As thou livest, in the world to
come his light shall be sevenfold that light he now sheds.”"

So yeah, the moon will become larger in size in the future and will become even brighter than the sun. Now if the moon merely reflects the sun’s light then how is it to be brighter than the sun? Well, if the Bible meant that the moon produces it’s own light. But I shouldn’t expect a fundy to read the bible in the context it was written.

“When the EARTH is between the Moon, and the Sun, does the Moon produce Light??”

Oh Chas, don’t you know eclipses are a product of the devil to cast doubt upon true believers like Nathan?

Hey Ben,

I’ll have to ask you to watch tonite and report back. I’m still too emotionally scarred from the report last week that said the ‘ShamWow’ didn’t work!

Hank – I remember the sham report. They do some good reporting there from time to time.

If MaggPun sits in a dark room and I shine a flashlight on him, is he producing light?

they should have a television show called “the sham report”

Regardless, the Bible makes no claim that the moon “produces” light as Maggotpunk claims.

Instead of trying to actually support his argument Maggotpunk keeps introducing other arguments and red herrings.

Maggotpunk,

I don’t recall ever reading something like that. Where did you get it from?

I have never claimed to believe such either.

Yet again, instead of actually trying to prove your argument, you attack me.

You simply can’t argue logically. You never have been able to with me and still can’t.

It’s Isaiah prophesy. here’s the rest of the story. It still does not say the light is produced by the moon….. if the sun’s light is brighter… so is the moon’s ….. logical.

Isaiah 60:19
The sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.

I do believe that Isaiah 30 is in all of the Bibles now in print… should be fairly easy to check that quote…

I’m still chuckling about the MOON producing Light — and as to why the Ancients would believe such a thing, I can deal with that easily…. It LOOKS like it produces Light… The Ancients did not have telescopes, and such and therefore, only wrote a written record of what they OBSERVED…

As for the Midrash, that would be somewhat comparable to the Apocrypha… which for Protestants, at least, is not considered Scripture, but rather, Meta Scripture….

Maybe that will help the discussion….

However, Isaiah is NOT part of the Midrash, but part of the Canon of Scripture.

OK — I have to run a few errands… BUT, when I get back, I will post one of my now deceased father’s possible alternatives for higher mileage vehicles, and it isnt a Horse!!

LOL Back after while….

Or from Adam to Abraham for that matter?

More re outlander’s infamous “journalist”, Michael Duffy.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/more_on_duffy.php

Obama asks bipartisan duo to meet officials at G20

President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday named a bipartisan duo of Washington veterans to meet foreign delegations at this weekend’s global financial summit, opening communication between the next U.S. administration and its global counterparts.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a Democrat, and former Republican Rep. Jim Leach will be available for unofficial meetings on Obama’s behalf at the Washington summit, which Obama himself will not attend, a statement from his office said.

“This weekend’s summit is an important opportunity to hear from the leaders of many of the world’s largest economies,” said Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough. “President (George W.) Bush should be commended for calling the summit.”

Officials from the G-20 group of leading economies will meet in Washington to discuss overhauling the international financial system in response to a credit crisis that threatens global recession.

more at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4A95CG20081112

Nathan–

It is well-known that the length of time between the historical David and the birth of Christ cannot be filled with the generations that are listed.

Also, you claim that the days of Creation were 24 hour days, with absolutely no proof to back up this assertion.

“However, Jewish scholars who discussed creation chronology include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, all but one believed that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). All of these references are available at Wheaton College’s server. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Ages Software or Logos Research.”

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

Nathan says, “I did not admit that God created other humans at about the same time he created Adam.”

Interesting.

So where did the other humans come from that Cain had to be protected from?

I read this from an earlier post, BTH.

Fascinating.

The author claims that time would change during Creation based on Einstein’s theories of relativity.

But it requires interpretation.

The Prices’ just “read it and believe it.”

“So where did the other humans come from that Cain had to be protected from?”

Nevermind . . . I figured it out: evolution!

“And just how long was a “day” before there was a sun up there in orbit going around the earth?”

Why do even have to ask, Ben?

Just ask the famous Biblical scholars, Nathan and Hank. Even though it doesn’t say so, the Bible must have meant 24 earth hours, no more, no less.

She was created from Adam’s rib. Wouldn’t that generate the same DNA?

Ben,

Perhaps, but we don’t know exactly how God used that rib to form her. (i.e. a “clone”)

Ah, I got it now.

When you want The Bible to say something even though it doesn’t, you just make it say what you want:

Ergo, all humans descended from Adam and Eve (even though Bible seems to be quite specific which children Adam and Eve had, even noting that Seth was born to replace the murdered Able, and it says nothing about all these progeny who might threaten Cain).

When The Bible says, “Day One, evening and morning,” that means a 24 hour day even though the sun and the earth which define a day had not been created yet.

Just make The Bible say whatever you want it to using inconsistent or even NO evidence.

Okay, got it.

Sorry, Nathan.

I thought your c*ck-sure assertion that according to Genesis the “earth is only 10,000 years old” was based on some evidence from the text.

Now I see it’s based on nothing but wishful thinking and a willful ignorance.

Don’t look now, but the greatest threat civilization has ever seen is taking place in Connecticut!!!! /sarcasmOFF

Same-sex marriage begins in Conn.

aryan November 12, 2008 –>
local news updates
updated
Wednesday, 4:59 PM
From the City & Region staff at The Boston Globe
Same-sex marriage begins in Conn.
November 12, 2008 11:43 AM Email| Comments (3)| Text size – +

By Gregory B. Hladky, Globe Correspondent

NEW HAVEN — Peg Oliveira and Jennifer Vickery became Connecticut’s first legally wed same-sex couple shortly before 11 a.m. today in a ceremony on the steps of City Hall punctuated with tears, red roses, and clutches of white balloons.

Their marriage was conducted nearly 90 minutes after a lower court judge formally entered a decision to comply with a state Supreme Court ruling that found that any laws banning same-sex marriage violated Connecticut’s constitution. Standing in Superior Court, the eight plaintiff couples in the case hugged each other and their lawyers as Judge Jonathan E. Silbert entered the ruling and cleared the final hurdle, making this the only state other than Massachusetts to allow same-sex couples to wed.

“Today Connecticut sends a message of hope and inspiration to lesbian and gay people throughout this country who simply want to be treated as equal citizens by their government,” said Ben Klein, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, speaking on the courthouse steps “This is living proof that marriage equality is alive and well and making progress in this country.”

The plaintiff couples and the crowd of 50 well-wishers walked a few blocks to City Hall to be greeted with bouquets of red roses and clusters of white balloons. A small crowd at the steps cheered and passing cars honked in support of the same-sex marriage victory.

In the City Clerk’s office, Barbara and Robin Levine-Ritterman became the first of the plaintiff couples to get their marriage license. The couple’s civil union “just did not compute” for their twin 11-year-old sons, Carlos and Fernando, said Barbara Levine-Ritterman. “Now they can say our moms are married,” she said.

Jeffrey Busch and Stephen Davis, another of the plaintiff couples, wore pink “I do” buttons on their lapels as they emerged from city offices with their new marriage license.

“This feels like the beginning of a long married life together,” said Busch with a wide grin as he stood with his partner of more than 16 years.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/samesex_marriag_3.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed5

The Dover trial was a decision by one person in a science teaching matter.

That would be the Dover trial where Michael Behe stated on that stand that his definition of “science” would have to include astrology to make any sense.

I can’t tell your religion by looking at you. But discrimination based on religion is a civil rights issue.

#
Nathaniel
Posted November 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

Ben,

Perhaps, but we don’t know exactly how God used that rib to form her. (i.e. a “clone”)
======================================================
Nathan.
And there in lies the problem: Genesis states God made Eve from Adams rib. If you believe that, than how can you doubt the DNA argument. It seems to me you are making concessions that are no based on Genesis. If you are making concessions based on something other than Genesis, than it quite throws the whole of Genesis out the window.

In other words, why not make concessions on all of Genesis based on individual interpretations? My own belief is in theistic evolution. God made the universe starting with the big bang, and the universe progressed to its present state. I have no problem believing man came along around one to two million years ago, and God gave him free will in the form of Adam and Eve.

It has been my belief the bible was written by man, via the word of God, with Genesis written for the people of biblical times. Hence the flood was not world wide, but limited to the Black Sea, where most of the people of the times were living. There is much evidence to support that theory.

I just think there is too much evidence of a universe being over 13 billion years old, and this planet being over four billion years old, to believe in the 7000 year old stories. But I also know it’s just a theory, much like gravity is a theory. There is still much we don’t know, but not enough, IMHO, to believe that Genesis is anything but a biblical story.

Because some believe the bible, and in particular Genesis, is the word of God, does that condemn others who think their version of Genesis, for example native Americans, as correct ,to hell? And does man even have the right to think that, in Gods mind?

When the sons took wives – who did they take?

The greatest threat to civilization ever seen?

Hmmm, that is easy:

An elderly woman carrying a styrofoam cross of course!

Was there a point in there somewhere?

The scattering of the people and languages (Tower of Babel) come after the great flood.
The earth was one land mass prior.

Pangea was about 250,000,000 years ago.

“Pangea was about 250,000,000 years ago.”

Sure it was.

Did Noah’s grandkids all marry each other? First cousins?

All the bible says is that the sons of man married the daughters of God.

Where did the first male Human find his mate according to the theory of evolution?

Sorry, there were sons of God, not daughters of God and this transpired after the flood

Gen 6:2
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Regarding where Cain found his wife:

Cain was exiled from the garden of eden alone. No mention of where he found his wife.

Chas
Posted November 12, 2008 at 5:47 pm | Permalink
The question not being asked is “Who were the Nephilim?”
———–

They were livin’ “large” from what I hear.

And then, fast forward to the time of King Saul, and the Philistines, and the shepherd boy David, killing (or do you prefer slaying) the GIANT, Goliath?? (About 9 ft. tall)

Werent all of those Giants killed off in that alleged Flood??? Hmmmm???

reproduce…sorry

Please remember that Nathan stated very clearly that we dont have to believe every word of it exactly as it is written…

So, there is plenty of latitude here for “sane” discussion…

dammit to many ‘were’s….long day.

Not according to Genesis…. but maybe you have a holy book that says that… Some of the ancient manuscripts call them the Anunaki…
————–

I thought I had read that interpretation of fallen angels years ago. Can’t remember the author.

There have indeed been numerous authors who have said that, ANTI… But, their source was not from Genesis… Perhaps from the Gilgamesh Epic, or other writings of the Ancients…

“…which was to the East of Eden, wherever Eden was…”

If you had a Garmin you would know where Eden was.

Yo, Duh, I mean, Hud….

So, you know where the Gishon and Pishon rivers were located?? Hmmmm…..

Still like the name calling, right.

Ah for fuk sake Chas, I was just trying to have a damn conversation. Your a preacher, I wanted to know your thoughts on the subject. That is all.

I was having a discussion, ANTI… I told you you might have run across it in some other ancient manuscript…

#
Chas
Posted November 12, 2008 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

ANTI?? You been seeing angels lately??
—————-

Just my wife.

IF all of life is destroyed except for Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives…. Where did the GIANT Goliath come from???

#
Chas
Posted November 12, 2008 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

IF all of life is destroyed except for Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives…. Where did the GIANT Goliath come from???
========================================================
WalMart.

Chas
Posted November 12, 2008 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

The Nephilim are referred to as the “sons of the gods” marrying the daughters of men… Gen. 6…. note, “of the gods” Not God….
==============

Yeah, that got to me, but maybe it was because many gods were worshiped at the time it was written. I don’t know..

Do we know how tall Noah was? I haven’t seen any family pictures so it is hard to know.

Where did Chas come from?

I’m enjoying the CMA awards. What a group of talented singers and pickers. Does anyone here remembers Hootie and the Blowfish and their lead singer Darius Rucker. He has a country smash hit that has been in the top 20 for weeks, Don’t Think I Don’t Think About It.

They also had Kid Rock and his smash hit for the summer, Sweet Home Alabama. Seems country is where the money is right now.

Snoop Dog even had a song with Rascal Flatts.

Good post American. We have seen the enemy and it is us.

Just heard Obama called Reid and said he holds no ill feelings towards the turncoat Lieberman and would like to see him remain with the dems. caucus and keep his chairmanship.
Obama may just heal the divide that bush widened.

American: The biggest assembling center for autos in North America isn’t Michigan, it’s Ontario, for all the reasons you note above. The base wage rate is comprabe to the US but universal health insurance is in place for everyone, workers or retired, Big 3 or Japanese, they all have it. When you reach 65 you also get a Nationonal Pension and Old Age allowance around $12,000.00 per annum easing the burden on the pension plans demanded by the Unions and this is pretty well how things are done elsewhere. I do not agree with any concept that both countries get to Mexican labor/enviornmental rates, if that is what you are driving at.

I wonder what financial condition GM, Ford, and Chrysler might be in had they spent all their lobbying budget on research and development.

GM got what they paid for; tax breaks for Cadillac Escalades, Chevy Suburbans, Hummers. And they held off those nasty CAFE standards to 1979 levels. Meanwhile their Research and Development engineers concentrated on cup-holder design.

The arrogance of monopoly, as taught in Economics 101, misses the point of the bigger and more overpowering arrogance of capitalism itself. A company or industry can become too powerful and too big to fail.

It’s not just GM, Ford, and/or Chrysler that would fall into economic ruin, but all those towns, suppliers, dealers, salesmen (okay, that wouldn’t be so bad), service managers, mechanics, car washes, all employees and their dependents (and those who depend on dependents i.e., daycare, Happy Meals, Toys R Us…) will collapse in the avalanche of failure of fundamental Republic Party economic policy.

One of the sad consequences of democracy (or whatever it is you want to call our system of government) is that it’s in our DNA to put off problems ’til they become crises.

The 3/5ths-of-a-person compromise festered fourscore and seven years ’til it became the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise put off Civil War for forty years and made the problem worse.

“All deliberate speed” was an internal SCOTUS compromise in the Brown v. Topeka Board decision… which was vague enough to exacerbate racial animosities for decades.

Even the so-called “Bush Tax Cut” was a compromise that came back to bite ‘em. In all purported good faith the Republic Party congressional majority swore up and down the 2002 tax cut would be temporary; that it would expire as scheduled in 2010. But the Republic Party rubbed Democrats’ noses in their compromise s#it by calling it a “socialist, Marxist, terrorist tax increase.”

There probably is a good reason for government to help sustain the industries that created the automobile culture. But we cannot compromise away the power of capital. A bailed-out GM, Ford, and/or Chrysler will have to use taxpayer dollars for the benefit of the investors: the taxpayers.

Monkey — I once was called an Eeeeeevil Socialist here by a certain poster, because I made an observation, that it is pretty hard to increase my Income, by asking for a CUT in Pay…

Maybe Bush and the Repubs have learned that now too…. Maybe??? Ya think???

Nawwwwwwwwww no chance!!

If you always do what you always done, you’re always gonna get what you always got!

Norm Coleman does not want votes counted in Minnesota.

He KNOWS he will lose in the recount which is mandated by law but he, nevertheless tried to stop.

WHY do Republicans NEED to cheat?

CapnAmerica,

Alright. The Bible doesn’t specifically say where the other people came from.

So where do you think they came from then?

The Bible clearly shows that Cain married, and settled in the land of Nod. There were obviously other people who might kill him as well that werew warned not to by God.

The mere fact that the Bible didn’t specifically lay out how many kids Adam and Eve had before the Cain story proves what?

That it had to be Evolution then?

Oh yeah, that makes so much more obvious sense then my “giant” leap of logic in saying that Adam and Eve had more children.

Ben and JM Walker,

I am not saying that Adam and Eve couldnt’ have been genetically identical at all. I think it could very well be possible.

I was merely saying that it is not a foregone conclusion to affirm it as fact simply because the Bible said God formed Eve from Adam’s rib.

The question about genetics doesn’t take into account certain Biblical ideas. You have to assume that men and DNA exists exactly the same during the creation as it does now. This was most likely not the case.

God created Adam and Eve as perfect. Their children married one another and did this for many generations even past Noah.

Only after the “fall of man” were we no longer perfect.

Something happened to our genetic makeup after that. Doesn’t our DNA get more garbled over time rather than more clear?

So when you argue that there has not been enough time for this much gentic diversity do you take into account that man was created perfect and only after some time did our genetics degrade to a point where incest was harmful?

Poor Nathaniel. . . he also believes that the LYING agricultural economist Dennis Avery is a credible source of AGW climate science.

JM Walker,

I have said many times that one doesn’t have to believe in Creation to be a Christian. I believe that Creation is true according to the Bible and often question the motives of those Christians who don’t, but your salvation does not rest on accepting Creation.

I do believe that your salvation does rest on your faith in Christ though.

Gravity is a law. I can walk out of my home right now and both test and observe gravity.

Evolution is a theory. One which most of it can’t be tested nor can it be observed either.

About the only thing which can be tested and observed is “micro” Evolution which I do not contest. I just don’t believe much of it proves that all life evolved from some “assumed” life 4 billion years ago.

I have always found a most strange dichotomy that in the ancient writings, we see the CREATOR being in fear of the CREATION…. The Fruit of the Tree in the Garden…. The building of the Tower in Babel… where God is afraid of the humans building a tower to reach the heavens…. How many others??

Amazing that the All Powerful Creator, who Knows All, and Is All, and In All…. is afraid of a lowly human… the product OF the Creator…

Not just that… I think it is a bit of a struggle to figure out why this All Powerful Creator, who knows All Things…. Didnt KNOW that these two humans would eat of a forbidden fruit… from the moment of their Creation….

And isnt a tiny bit suspicious that this All Powerful, all knowing Creator should then seek to PUNISH ALL HUMANS for the actions of the first two… that the Creator, being all powerful and all knowing, already KNEW would happen???

Somehow, I think there is more to this story, than “original sin” — something far more telling for our human race, than just this All Powerful GOD… is still punishing us…. for something WE didnt do…. even to the point of brutally executing what we say was his ONLY Son…. to make things right for US… if we will just believe???

BELIEVE WHAT??? That our Creator is some sort of Eternal, Magical Sadist?? Some God of Love that seeks to condemn mere humans to Eternal Damnation…. if they dont want to play the Divine Blame Game???

There has to be more to it than that…. If not, it makes NO sense… none at all!!

Chas,

And your 12:30am post is exactly why you are no Christian.

Chas,

So what do you believe then?

That there is a god, but he expects nothing from us and even if he did it doesn’t matter what we do or if we meet any of this god’s expectations because we are all going to heaven?

This god then chose to “create” us through some complex system of Evolution where there isn’t even any evidence that there was his doing it and all of it is explained through natural random chance which doesn’t involve god at all. So you don’t even really have to believe there is a god.

Now that makes no sense. Apparently the god you believe in is whatever makes you feel good.

I’m open minded enough to put the question to the test.

“Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God” is a cop out.

The supposed creator of the entire universe aint done much heavy or light lifting lately.

I say suspend the belief let alone worship pending some action. I want to see the hungry fed. I want to see the evil and greedy punished in this world and not after the fact. Failing that? God is either non existent or unworthy.

Chas,

Your entire 12:30am post was a mockery of the very things which make one a Christian.

Then you wonder why it bothers me when you call yourself one?

If I went to Saudi Arabia, clothed in pig skin, munchin on a porkchop talking about how Mohammad was really a pedophile pervert and how the pillars of Islam were a fraud do you think they would be bothered by me calling myself a muslim?

Gee…. I wonder?

Nathan, in reality, what you are saying is that since I do NOT, and WILL not accept your extremely narrow, pentecostal, fundamentalistic, interpretation of biblical literature, then I am not a Christian….

IF Christianity were as narrow as you project here, then there wouldnt be many to join with you in your interpretation…

I thank God daily, that I can question what I dont understand, and struggle for answers…. that I dont have to accept the “God-in-a-box du jour” served up by the curent self-professed biblical expert…

With that, I must now get some sleep… long day tomorrow!! Nite!!

“…the human failings of paranoia and war”

Also known as training our anti-submarine forces to be able to detect submarine threats to our fleets during time of war.

But hey, we don’t need to train. Let our ships get sunk by the enemy.

“This god then chose to “create” us through some complex system of Evolution where there isn’t even any evidence that there was his doing it and all of it is explained through natural random chance which doesn’t involve god at all. So you don’t even really have to believe there is a god.”

This, I think, is exactly the point.

If God gave us irrefutable evidence for his existence (such as a big yellow banner found in the deep sea that says I AM), what would be the point of faith? The universe, and the diversity of life, can easily be explained WITHOUT invoking the presence of a deity. That means, you don’t get to look for hard scientific evidence to support your belief. You have to go by the readings and teachings of Christ and the Church. You can, if you choose, to live a life completely apart from God-the evidence for that is astounding. The fact that you do believe even though there is a framework for non-belief is hard. And nobody said following God’s will and teaching is easy.

It’s kind of like if there was a man who loved you so dearly, that he anonymously gave you a bone marrow transplant when you were on the verge of death. If you had concrete proof in medical records that he saved your life, you would be obliged to love him back for what he did for you. Would that be true love? Probably not. But he probably wouldn’t want you to love him back out of obligation, he would want you to find out more about him from others and learn about him and grow to love him for what he did. And if you didn’t end up loving him back, he would be sad but let you go on with your life, blissfully unaware of his sacrifice. It is the faith that is important in Christianity. Having the faith to make the leap to believe that this guy gave you a new shot at life without any irrefutable evidence, just clues.

I am a scientist, an evolutionary biologist. And I am a follower of the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Christianity and reason are not mutually exclusive.

As it stands now, the diversity of life can be explained by science. The origins of life can be postulated by many theories, although I’m not sold on a particular theory. However, I won’t subscribe to a “God of the Gaps”, that is, if we can’t explain it it boils down to GodDitIt. If the evidence for a liposome giving rise to the first cell accumulates and becomes nearly irrefutable, I will accept it after reading the literature, and my faith in Christ will not diminish.

All of the evidence I’ve seen supports evolution, from developmental bio to microbiology to botany to zoology to molecular phylogeny. God is not a charlatan, trying to plant false evidence to test our faith. Rather, he has given us the ability for curiosity and scientific inquiry, and plenty of fields to explore our talents. Some people will choose to use it as an excuse to deny him. Others, like myself, will welcome it as a way to become closer to him.

And some will just lalalalala deny the science altogether.

THANKS Tara!! Very well said!!

Thanks, Chas. I’ve been lurking for a while and I’m getting irritated at the idea that a good scientist and a true Christian cannot exist in the same person.

Tara,

Funny how you would get irritated over something I don’t believe anyone here is arguing.

Nathan,
It seems that your idea of a good scientist and mine differ vastly.

A good scientist, to you, accepts the evidence gathered by the scientific method UNTIL IT CONFLICTS WITH YOUR BELIEF.

A good scientist, for me, accepts the evidence gathered by the scientific method UNLESS IT CONFLICTS WITH HIS BELIEF, at which time he will design a research experiement to attempt to disprove the evidence. Should he fail, he will go with what the evidence supports.

A good scientist’s curiosity is not satisfied with “God Did It”.

Tara,

And once again, you are forced to use the strawman logical fallacy. You keep making these assertions for what I believe which I have never made and… do not believe.

“A good scientist, to you, accepts the evidence gathered by the scientific method UNTIL IT CONFLICTS WITH YOUR BELIEF.”

I believe no such thing.

So the reason you deny carbon dating, molecular phylogeny demonstrating common descent among numerous taxa, evolution of complex metabolic systems in cells, basic tenants of sympatric speciation, endosymbiotic theory and tons of other evidence across numerous fields of science, has NOTHING to do with your belief in Christianity?

(these are not random big words, they are a few examples of all the evidence I’ve given you for evolution over the past few years)

That’s laughable. Go ahead, then, and work on refuting every piece of evidence for evolution I’ve given you. Do you want links to my previous posts? I’m willing to bet that you only deny them because it conflicts with your 6,000 year old creation story.

Be honest, and maybe we can get somewhere. You don’t deny the science, because you’ve probably never read a peer-reviewed paper in your life. You deny the implications of the science; that it might shatter your worldview.

“Why do you doubt evolution?”

I don’t doubt it. I think most of it is completely wrong. It would be a rather long post explaing completely why.

“It can’t be because of the lack of evidence because I have on numerous occasions patiently refuted your problems with it”

I must have missed those conversations. Most of the ones I remember are more you questioning me on Creation and my trying to seperate the two discussions and then the discussion ending.

“AND offered plenty of evidence of my own. Is it because if it’s true, your faith will be lost?”

No, it is because I disagree.

“I’m just calling them as I see them.”

So far, you have made several false claims.

Tara,

I never said it had NOTHING to do with my belief either. My worldview is centered on the belief that God did indeed create the world as told in Genesis. Of course this will influence how I am predisposed to view things.

The problem is that I don’t refute much of the “evidence” you give me nor do I think I have to refute it either.

for someone so upset for a cheap shot from my father you continue to make false claims about me and then little snipes like saying I have never read a peer reviewd paper before or that I deny the implications of science…blah blah blah.

This is the typical crap that I have come to expect from people like you.

>There has to be more to it than that…. If not, it makes NO sense… none at all!!<
Chas.
IMHO, is that not the issue that many non-Christians have with Christianity? The Christian key to salvation, although extremely narrow, is also extremely simple and easy. Therefore man in all his “wisdom” and with his inquisitive nature refuses to accept it because “it just can’t be that easy”.

I thank God that it IS that easy, because I could never be “good” enough to even approach the standards of a Holy God. Not only that, but it gives hope to those who are already condemned by other religions solely for their past indiscretions.

If man was going to invent a religion, I don’t think he would invent Christianity because it challenges our logic and our very nature.

okobserver: You’re friend in Virginia is full of crap, if you don’t contribute to the Canadian Pension Plans over the span of your working years, you don’t get anything. It’s not a freebie, although drugs are free for seniors. As to healthcare that stuff about them coming here for care is a fable told by the profit centered health barons hereabouts I’ve seen blown away with the truth from other posters on these threads having to do with healthcare. They must be doing something right because Canada is the least affected country in the world from the current economic malaise with no need to bail out their financial system, judged the soundest of the 130 countries in the IMF.