Obama’s possible reaction to his election and Nobel Peace Prize
Posted by Enkill_Eridos on December 10, 2009
If I was him I would spend five minutes a day with my feet on the oval office desk and jamin out to this song.
- Home
- “A” PAGE ABOUT US…
- #Gamergate and what it is really about.
- A CHRISTIAN Conservative’s View
- A CHRISTIAN LIBERAL’s View
- A primer on the Government.
- Article Suggestion
- Blog Rating
- Born ATHEIST
- Christian Lies and Rumor.
- Does GOD “Hate Fags”?
- Fact of Evolution
- History of Separation of Church and State
- I NEED ADVICE
- Mind if I Vent?
- OUR ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE 21st CENTURY
- Our Favorite Music Videos
- Poetry(?)
- Project: Sanctuary
- SOPA/PIPA proof politicians view of “Small Government” is just buzz words.
- The Cost of Repealing the Affordable Health Care Act of 2009
- Weekly Bills in the Senate and the House 2013
- Article Suggestion
- Same Sex Marriage
- “REVERSE IGNORANCE”….A TROUBLING NEW SOCIAL ILL
A Different Kind of Blog 
Enkill_Eridos said
He probably says, Who is right Creationism or Evolution? I wonder where I could get the information? All while listening to this song…
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
He probably says, Who is right Creationism or Evolution? I wonder where I could get the information? All while listening to this song…Or maybe God listens to this song, laughing and saying both are right, Damn it feels good to be a Gangsta….(This is called a humorous bait comment…take the bait…TBG and Kay’s debate actually amuse me..gogogogo)
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Okay I will dance for your amusement E_E. No guarantees Kay will join though.
I personally believe as you suggest that BOTH evolution and creationism are right, but not in the way of the strict fundie literal interpretation of Genesis. The reason I don’t believe the strict fundie literal interpretation of Genesis is that there is no evidence, none, nada, zilch, that supports that view. Most of the claims made from that interpretation cannot be tested, but those peripheral claims that can be tested have been proven FALSE, again and again, in many tests by many people over many years. I’m not making this up. There have been at least a dozen major court cases in the USA the past forty years or so challenging evolution, and in every case the creationists never had ANYTHING concrete to back up their position, nothing, nada, zilch.
Evolution on the other hand has literally tons of evidence of many different types that show it happens. Each piece of evidence is significant in itself, but sometimes corroborates other pieces of evidence of completely different types in stunning fashion.
Children should be taught what we know is true about our physical world. They should be taught that the earth goes around the sun instead of the sun going around the earth as the Bible teaches. They should be taught that the earth is spherical instead of flat as the Bible teaches. They should be taught that humans ARE apes because we are. Even if God “poofed” us into existence magically without our actually having evolved, he created us AS apes. Every bone, muscle and nerve of a chimp matches those of a human piece for piece. The relative sizes may differ, but the parts match up perfectly.
I didn’t say “as the Bible teaches” for that line, because when read as an allegory the Bible does NOT contradict evolution. The Bible says man came from the dust of the earth. So does evolution. The Bible says animals bring forth offspring after their kind. So does evolution. There is no conflict except from people who have been LIED to about what evidence actually exists or who are too stupid or insane to understand it.
I explained in another post in another thread (will this discussion ever end?) that yes, animals bringing forth offspring “after their kind” is perfectly consistent with what is known by science. Individuals don’t evolve; populations do. Any set of parents will produce offspring that are very similar to those parents, but the relative frequency of which alleles are expressed in a population can shift over time in response to environmental pressures, and over enough time can and does result in new species being produced.
The ancestors of humans were fish. Fish became amphibians, then mammal like reptiles, then mammals, primates, and humans. Yes man is made from the dust of the earth, but the dust went through many generations over millions of years before assuming human form. Think of it as God rolling the dust around in his hand to shape us, and his hand encompasses the earth where the evolution is taking place. You’ve all heard that song “He’s got the whole world in his hand” right?
By the way, the bringing forth after their kind explanation and the whole world in his hand thingie are both original ideas of mine so far as I know, my contribution to trying to reconcile what is KNOWN to be FACT by modern science with the teachings of a book written by and for Bronze Age middle eastern goat herders who had the world view and scientific knowledge of that time and place. We HAVE learned some things about how the world works since that time, but some people are uncomfortable about that.
Kay (and others) insist that if science can’t explain the ultimate origin of the universe and life, then it has nothing. That’s bullshit. Just because we can’t YET explain how everything started, and possibly never will be able to explain it, that still doesn’t stop us from accurately describing what is here now, and that includes past processes such as gravity and evolution that still exist.
There is as much proof that humans and chimps share a common ancestor as there is proof that the earth goes around the sun instead of vice versa. There is as much proof that evolution happens as there is that gravity happens. This is why evolution is a FACT, and why children in public school science classrooms should be taught evolution is a FACT and not “just a theory.” Evolution is exactly no more or no less a theory than gravity is. You’re related to a monkey; get over it. Hey I know, maybe to bait her I can start calling names: monKAY! lol lol lol
LikeLike
princessxxx said
hahaha, good lyrics.
were gangsta niggaz created or did they evolve?
LikeLike
dorian said
damn it feels good to be a gangsta!! good one, e_e.
oh, another evolution/creation debate? should i go in there? i’m scared of getting caught in the crossfire! i’ll stay here for now. TBG maybe it’s monkeys kay doesn’t like. push the fish ancestry. that’s where it started anyway!!
obama’s acceptance speech was pretty good and he wrote it himself. mr. gangsta good with the lyrics!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
no, actually where it all started was that we were pond scum… technically, we are nothing but advanced pond scum… that is what TBG proposes that we teach children in schools.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
go back further Kay, before that we were organic molecules, then further back just elements, further still subatomic particles, further than that we can’t explain yet. The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the energy is eternal.
Yes Kay, YOU are highly derived pond scum, but so is everybody else so don’t take it personally. Children should be taught the TRUTH, what we KNOW as FACT as surely as we know that the earth goes around the sun instead of vice versa as the Bible teaches when read the way you read the Genesis story. Why the inconsistency on your part? Why do you accept that the earth goes around the sun but not that we evolved from pond scum, when there is just as much evidence to show this happened?
LikeLike
dorian said
I FEEL A POEM COMING ON…THE TITLE IS POND SCUM.
in celebration of obama’s nobel peace prize.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The debate is purely a cultural one, not a scientific one. The verdict was in a long time ago among scientists. Evolution happens. For some reason, some people don’t like the idea of being highly-derived fish, but whatever. They’re entitled to their opinion, but for them to claim their view has ANY evidence supporting it, ANY AT ALL, is bullshit, much less for them to claim that their opinion is just as valid as evolution that has TONS of evidence supporting it.
Another thing about the christian fundies arguments against evolution are the egregious LIES those idiots spread, whether from true ignorance, wickedness, stupidity or insanity I do not know. For example, some creationist web sites publish long lists of quotations from noted scientists and scientific works that purport to show that evolution is bogus, yet when the original sources of those quotations are examined EVERY ONE of them shows the author may be quibbling over details of the mechanisms or such but absolutely positively does not say evolution does not happen. This is what is called “quote mining.” For a few quotes to be mistaken is one thing, but for most if not all of them to be that way shows malicious intent to deceive. What’s that about not bearing false witness? The fundies don’t follow their own Bible. If interested, look for quote mine project at the talk origins archive for examples of what I’m talking about.
Another egregious LIE is the claim that there are no transitional fossils, when in fact there are between every major group of living creatures, including fish to land animals, dinosaurs to birds, land animals to whales (including whales with legs!) and (the one the creationists hate the most) apes to humans. The older hominid fossils are more ape like and over time there is a clear progression from more ape like to more human like features. What’s more, the fossils are not only in the rocks but also in our genes. The lying sack of shit creationist village idiots either don’t know that or choose to ignore it because they’d have to admit they were wrong then, and their whole world view would come crashing down on them.
I wonder how many Christians were this upset at being told that the earth isn’t really flat, or that the earth goes around the sun. Christian creationists are SO stupid!!!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have a comment awaiting moderation (Obama). Oh it will show up sooner or later (Nobel Peace Prize). My pending comment has nothing directly to do with the titled subject of this thread (gangsta), but is the result of direct invitation by E_E to use this thread for a personal grudge match between The Bicycling Guitarist in this corner and monKAY the Black Knight village idiot in the other corner. In this corner, truth, sanity, and the evidence of the world God created. In monKAY’s corner, well, you get the idea…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
actually there doesn’t have to be a fight here. I have no objections to anyone admitting the evidence exists for evolution but they choose not to accept it for personal or philosophical reasons. That ain’t bad. What gets me fired up is when those opposed to teaching evolution spread LIES such as I mentioned in my earlier posts. I hate lies, but try my best not to hate liars.
IF evolution were the way creationists portray it in their strawman arguments, then I wouldn’t accept it as the fact it is. BUT they either are unaware of what evolution is and how it works OR they are lying on purpose, because the way THEY describe evolution sure as heck ain’t the way it really is. They are also flat-out wrong to make claims such as there are no transitional fossils, that it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc. etc. etc.
IF evolution IS a conspiracy, it is NOT one foisted by atheists or scientists. IF it IS a conspiracy, it is GOD who is conning everybody by planting all this evidence to show evolution happens. Why would anyone want to believe in a God that tries so hard either to deceive us or test our faith by saying we must believe what idiots like Bill Keller say IN SPITE OF all the evidence of the physical world that show he is either ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane (or possibly all of the above)
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
It’s funny, fundies don’t like the idea of being the result of millions of years of evolution from ape-like creatures, even though that’s what God’s evidence shows, but have no problem at all believing we were just poofed into existence made out of dirt! How does that make any more sense than evolving from pond scum, especially since there is physical evidence of many different types that evolution happens?
I really like that whole world in his hand thingie I came up with earlier. That is new, and you folks so it here first at ADKOB. To repeat, imagine God rolling the dirt around in his hands for millions of years (which of course to God is nothing compared to how long it is to humans), the rolling around of the dirt in his hands being the process of evolution, and his hands encompassing the whole earth. Everybody sing now: He’s got the whole wide world in his hands; he’s got the whole world in his hands (where evolution happens).
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
It is in my experience that Christianity does not teach the entire truth. For a religion that professes it does, it in deed does not. Many Christian Ministers teach that those that follow Wicca and other shamanistic practices, that they actually invoke the name of Satan and sacrifice goats and what not. I have never seen any type of Wiccan ritual or any other shamanistic ritual that has done such a thing. I mean I have heard some very far out there explanations of things. Like Buddhists worship the Buddha, or that they are arrogant. But infact the teachings are very different. Evolution is not much different. The basis for their claims are usually based on ignorance, or misconceptions, or even flat out lies. But because trying to learn the truth is discouraged in many cases. If you do not agree with these claims you are “persuaded” to agree with them. Modern Christianity in many churches and practices has the same characteristics of a cult.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Don’t believe me? Look at Kay’s responses to some things. (Not on the Mormon issue, since I do not have the full knowledge of what Kay calls the “true” teachings. But look at other statements. You can see the defensive stance she takes, much like someone in a cult.)
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I am sure I am not the only one for whom the fundie position on evolution is a strong reason to not believe anything they say about anything. I mean, since they are so clearly and obviously wrong about something like evolution that has so MUCH evidence of so MANY types that is so easily checked and verified by anyone with access to a computer and the internet, how can anyone trust the fundies’ opinion on spiritual matters that do NOT have such abundant physical evidence available for everyone to see for themselves?
I frequently receive emails from outraged Christians about some of the pages on my web site, usually about the evolution song or essay but just this morning I got one about one of my Buddhism pages. This person contested my claim that it is possible to be a Buddhist AND a Christian at the same time without any conflict. This person’s main argument is that the Bible says “US Christians” are not to bow down to anything in this world, nothing at all, but this person thought that was what Buddhism was all about.
I wrote them back a quick explanation that Buddhists surrender their will to God just as Christians do, but don’t label God because they realize some people would get misled and confuse the map for the territory (I know there is much more to Buddhism than this…it is at once extremely simple and very complicated). I told them that I read the same Bible and I see Jesus teaching us the same things as Buddha, that Jesus was a Buddhist and to be like Jesus become a Buddhist.
Then I thought a bit and wrote another reply to that person a few minutes later saying that since Christianity is the dominant religion of western culture, that as a westerner (I was presuming the person is from a western culture although I could be wrong) it is right and proper for them to seek God within Christianity, that of course they don’t have to become a Buddhist themselves. That person wrote me back and said thank you for clearing that up.
Upon receiving their thanks, I wrote them a third time and told them that a LOT of people do NOT agree with my opinion, that on any subject there are as many opinions as there are people, but that it is my sincere belief that there is no conflict between Buddhism and Christianity. I also said that some who think they see a conflict do so because they do not understand Buddhism and may not understand Christianity as well as they think they do.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I wonder if anyone has ever done a historical study of the rate of acceptance of heliocentrism among Christians in the Middle Ages. After being taught for hundreds of years that the sun goes around the earth (since that is what the Bible clearly says), the weight of evidence finally convinced the main church bodies to admit they were wrong about that. How many peoples’ faith was shaken by this? How much evil was caused by people so disillusioned by the fallacy of their spiritual leaders that they decided to do whatever the heck they felt like doing, even lashing out at others in their anguish over the lack of honest guidance from church leaders on this matter?
Oh wait, evil wasn’t caused by people…In Isaiah 45 God Himself says that HE created evil. God is transcendent of all categories of thought. Good could not even exist unless evil exists to contrast it with. They are polar opposites, like the front and back of the same coin or opposite ends of the same stick. In this sense, in a bigger picture good and evil are different aspects of the same idea. Advaita Vedanta Hinduism is about the oneness of everything, which sounds a lot like describing God as Christians do, being everywhere at once, knowing everything, etc.
Such concepts are too deep for most people to care about. I don’t know why I do, and sometimes I wish I could be blissfully ignorant and just follow some leader’s advice on what to believe. I can’t though, especially when the leader like Bill Keller is so blatantly wrong about something as obviously true as the FACT of evolution.
Kay hasn’t danced in this thread for a while. Chicken? Come on in; you can win! LOL
LikeLike
princessxxx said
kay is either busy cleaning her car or having a tryst with tiger woods.
just joking kay, it really is you that keeps this blog lively.
without you we would just be another bunch of arrogant liberal pond slimes patting ourselves on the back with whatever limbs happened to have evolved…. and obama the antichrist.
god, i’m in such a good mood,it feels great to stick it to the man.
THUG PANSY FOR LIFE.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
again, it isn’t just that the fact of evolution is shown by overwhelming masses of evidence of many different types, which is why I say it is possibly the most well-proven FACT known to man. It isn’t just that the creationist position does not have ANY physical evidence supporting their viewpoint, and that the claims of theirs that can be tested have been proven false…
No, what really offends me the most about this creationism-evolutionism debate in the public are the blatant LIES told by creationists, and there are so many gullible Christians stupid enough to buy those lies that it causes trouble for educators and for children who deserve to be taught the TRUTH about evolution.
First off, the way creationists describe evolution is a strawman caricature which shows they have absolutely no understanding of what science is, how it works, or how much evidence there is.
Secondly, they LIE about what evidence exists and ignore much more.
Thirdly, even after their lies are exposed and proven to be incontrovertibly unmistakeably absolutely false, creationist will nonetheless continue repeating those same falsehoods even for decades after being caught.
Fourthly, when quoting scientists, creationists distort, misquote, and quote mine to make it look like there is dissension or disagreement in the scientific community about whether or not evolution occurs, when a careful examination of EVERY QUOTE they use shows that the disagreement is never about IF evolution occurs but over HOW it occurs.
Fifthly, they are ignorant caca poopoo heads.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Yousa Gangsta Ass Pansy…
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
TBG: See its about control, more people are starting to want to come up with their own conclusions. This is a threat to traditional Christianity, because they believe people will leave the religion. Because the Church today is rigid, they teach God is Rigid and does not want people to come up with their own conclusions. They teach that their way is the only way. Their way is becoming hollow, more “believers” are just paying lipservice. People are seeing this and are reacting, usually by trying to come with their own conclusions about God. The kinds of people that will buy a Strongs Biblical Dictionary and use it while they study the bible. It doesn’t always mean they go to extremes, some find that its enough just to study the bible with others. Bible Study Groups are more spiritually fufilling to these people. There are Churches that are nothing but a formal open-ended Bible Study Group. I haven’t seen very many people with the fundamentalist mentality in these churches.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TGB, I thought I would bring this comment to this post… from the other that you are not “allowed” to answer on.. so maybe now you can respond?
uh.. TBG.. you are using EE as an excuse to not address my points.. that is pretty obvious. I believe the issue is whether 1minion minds if we go off topic on this post. That is what EE stated anyway.
I propose that these are the two main points that you want to avoid…
My point that God could have used an existing planet that was destroyed to create the earth that we have today. Which would not make God a “prankster” for planting evidence and it would also make Genesis true in the literal sense.
You don’t seem to want to address this. Because you really dont’ have an argument and it calls you out on your constant accusations that anyone who doesn’t believe what you do is ignorant and a “village idiot”. You are the one who is being ignorant here… that is my contention based on what I’ve just explained.
And the other point is that you are an atheist. I visited your site (which doesn’t seem to be accessible now via your post name) and you clearly are an atheist based on what I read there. You have argued against Jesus’ deity here so you do not believe in the same God that I do. I tried to pinpoint exactly who you believe in and you’ve never really addressed that either. What I’ve gathered so far is that you believe you are a god and you believe in yourself. You are very similar to the Mormons who contend that they believe in the same God as Christians… and they clearly do not. You (and all liberal narcisistic “free thinkers”) like to take the Christian God and mold Him into the god that you want (but convieniently call yourself a “believer” to gain acceptance)… that is how cults begin… narcisism, ego and arrogance is always at the root of these “religions”.
And as to my comment #73… where did I say that I subscribe to that view??? The point I was making was that there are other views on how it all began that you cannot (and haven’t btw) argue against. And THEREFORE you shouldn’t call others arrogant and village idiots for not believing what you have chosen to believe.
To me, a village idiot is someone of great arrogance who makes accusations against others but cannot back them up.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay was humble enough to say she didn’t know what to believe regarding evolution, but challenged me as being arrogant to assume I know what’s real or isn’t.
Well, Kay, look at it this way. There are many, many pieces of evidence of many different types that only make sense if evolution happened. There isn’t any evidence in the physical world that supports a literal reading of Genesis. I know that sounds one-sided, but that is the greatest irony of it: that it IS that one-sided and yet there are still so many people who are ignorant of this.
Another point to consider is that there have been some deliberate frauds in the scientific world, BUT the important thing to remember is that these frauds were exposed by other scientist, NOT by creationists, and once exposed the data of the frauds or conclusions they imply are no longer used by scientists. On the other hand, there is much deception and distortion expressed by the creationists, and it is exposed not by creationists but by other people, yet even after being exposed as being fraudulent one still sees these LIES being spread by creationists, even decades later…
So, on one hand you have tons of evidence all pointing to the same reality, and honesty and integrity as far as reporting that evidence goes. On the other side you have NO evidence at all supporting their position, and much deception, lies and lack of integrity in their discussion.
Without knowing that the above paragraph refers to the subject of evolution versus creation, which side would you tend to go with, LOGICALLY?
Also, most importantly, I am NOT saying that creationism per se is wrong. The idea of a Creator as the ultimate source of everything and everyone is not something I am closed to, even if one insists that Creator MUST be the God of the Christian Bible. What I am opposed to is insisting that He did it the way a literal reading of Genesis implies, and the reason I am opposed to that INTERPRETATION is that it contradicts everything else God created, the proof of His creation in the rocks, the genes, the order in which things appear, etc. Heck, a literal reading of Genesis even contradicts itself! Compare the descriptions of the order of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis and it is obvious the book is cobbled together from different origin stories and the editing isn’t perfect.
Enough for now. I agree with Dorian and Princess and E_E that we need you in this blog, Kay, so it isn’t one-sided.
OTOH perhaps the reason you’re not answering these posts as much as in days past is that maybe, just maybe, you’re doing some research to try to find out if maybe, just maybe, your guru Bill Keller is mistaken at least regarding the subject of evolution. If so, I commend you on having an open mind and heart to truth. If not, oh well. Whatever you’re doing, I wish you and yours well. Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
“just joking kay, it really is you that keeps this blog lively.
without you we would just be another bunch of arrogant liberal pond slimes patting ourselves on the back with whatever limbs happened to have evolved…. and obama the antichrist.”
Thank you P… sorry to be so serious on the other post.. I hope I didn’t ruin your good mood. Now, I’ve got to go clean my car… I wish..
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG.. why would God start us off as pond scum? Why? I’m sorry, but if we started out as pond scum, I fail to see what meaning our lives have. We are an accident that just happened to evolve to what we are today. No one purposed us. That is what you are proposing. I don’t dispute evolution in nature. I draw the line of us evolving from pond scum.
And the energy comment… “The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the energy is eternal.”
Could you please refer to the scientific and / or fossil evidence for this? And if not, how that justifies you calling others ignorant for not agreeing with this “fact” of yours? Geeze…
This conclusion of yours is your explanation of existence that discounts God. I think you are an atheist in denial…or just a blatant liar.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i was always under the impression that genesis says we were created from mud.
mud, pond slime, same difference.
and dealing with mrs johnson at the michael bach clinic,
i would say it was a combination of both mud and pond slime.
with some cheap kmart perfume.
LikeLike
dorian said
i’m recycling adkob poems. too lazy to write a new one. i thought there was one with the manatee in it!
April 22, 2009 at Wednesday, April 22, 2009 e
i rather like the concept
of man evolving from the manatee
i never fancied the face
of a chimpanzee
but it’s half past three
and my dogs need to pee
it’s the end of the poem you see
29 seconds
dorian9
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
P does have a point.
Kay also has a point as well: You (and all liberal narcisistic “free thinkers”) like to take the Christian God and mold Him into the god that you want (but convieniently call yourself a “believer” to gain acceptance)… that is how cults begin… narcisism, ego and arrogance is always at the root of these “religions”.
Ego and arrogance is at the root of the Christian Church as well. It is very apparent in your arguments and speech patterns. This is what really amuses me, because you are arguing against cults when you fail to recognize the actual makings of a cult.
1.) A cult is usually headed by a charismatic leader.
2.) Members of a cult are usually so brainwashed, and this is used by creating fear. The fear does not have to be physical in nature, in most cases this fear usually is emotional in nature. The fear that if you don’t believe as this leader says you are going to hell.
3.) Because of their conditioning, a member of a cult will argue against any statement that goes against even a small degree the beliefs of their spiritual leader.
4.) In most cases this leader claims to be an authority on God. Sometimes is a self-proclaimed prophet. These are con men and women who uses faith to make a profit.
But God isn’t about fear, his message is that of salvation. A way out of the alternative, the alternative should be made known just not really focused on. The message he sent allows all people not just the Hebrew people to get into heaven. Jesus Christ was that message, he was born a man died on the cross as a man, then resurrected as something more. He sits next to his father, and on the day of judgment that is where he will be. The only way into heaven is to believe that Jesus died for your sins. You are implying very much that this is not the case. You are implying that truly a person is not a believer unless you are a Conservative Christian, and holds the views of the Church. Whether or not Mormons are even True Christians is not your business or place to judge whether or not they are or not. It actually is no man’s place to judge or to proclaim these things. That’s God’s job. I believe God is the creator, but he is also a teacher, parent, friend, brother, sister, among other things. And you can only do so much, if a person is unwilling to listen to the message then there is nothing you can do.
And the energy comment… “The point is that we are temporary local patterns of energy, but the energy is eternal.”
Could you please refer to the scientific and / or fossil evidence for this? And if not, how that justifies you calling others ignorant for not agreeing with this “fact” of yours? Geeze…
Actually he was talking about things on a much more deeper level than what is just on the surface. Our bodies are basically meat, blood, and bones. But they operate because of a biomolecular reaction to the energy given off by a subatomic particle, that is inside everyone’s body. This is sometimes referenced as a soul or more accurately “the breath of God.” Without this energy any type of life could not happen. Neither could the formation of stars and planets. It is the thing that can be amplified, but man cannot create it. It is what it is. Our nervous systems use this energy for us to move, breathe, talk, think, as well as for other things. This is scientific fact, if your brain stops sending these impulses of energy, you die.
I would like to know how I molded God into something I want? You are misunderstanding me, but that is okay, because I understand you are thinking of literal terms instead of the conceptual terms. Actually making statements that are I am right and you are wrong, those are born of ego and arrogance. Actually claiming to know the Will of God, is a claim of arrogance and ego. There is a bit of truth in every religion, but that truth is never fully explained. Comparing these similar truths all lead back to one source. It really doesn’t matter the Origins of the religion, it doesn’t mean God did not try to use these concepts to try to steer people in the right direction. Those are the truths I talk about, concepts that exist in every religion, and spiritual path. Concepts explained fully by the teachings of Jesus. I am not saying these religions are of God. But I am saying that it is possible, that God put these concepts into these religions and spiritual paths to prepare the Gentiles (Non-Jews) for the coming of Jesus and his teachings. That way he would be accepted by the Gentiles, and the Hebrews. Of course this would be a hard thing for someone who finds it difficult to understand concepts to actually understand.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
No E_E, you misunderstood me as much as Kay does.
Hasn’t anyone heard of E=MC^2 ?
All matter is condensed chunks of energy. The energy forms patterns that interact with other patterns of energy. The energy changes form, but is neither created nor destroyed.
Our bodies are like whirlpools in a stream. The cells of your body are not the same as they were a few years ago. Energy flows into this pattern and out of it. Eventually the pattern dissipates (what we call the death of the body), but the energy that formed the pattern existed before it took that form and continues afterward in other forms.
This is what we know from the findings of modern science. According to more than one line of evidence, the universe is about thirteen or fourteen billion years old. You can say God formed the universe, whatever. I won’t quibble with that. Some of the earlier generations of stars went through their life cycles of nuclear fusion producing heavier elements. Some of the stardust from those earlier generations of stars condensed to form new stars and planets, including our solar system (we know this because of the relative percentages of heavier elements as shown in the spectra of light from our sun, and analysis of chunks of the solar system as well). Our particular planet is about four and a half billion years old. Eventually life started three or four billion years ago, probably from chemical combinations made possible because of what elements were present under what conditions. You can say God arranged for these elements and these conditions to be present. I won’t quibble about that. Once life started, it evolved. Speciation occurred. Life diversified to use unexploited energy sources in the environment. You can say God started the first cell. I won’t quibble with that. Over time, slime became fish, fish became amphibians, amphibians became mammal-like reptiles, then mammals, primates then humans. That is what the evidence of God’s creation shows us, and if it didn’t happen that way God is a trickster to plant SO MUCH evidence that clearly shows it DID happen that way.
Why do you have a problem with this? It clearly isn’t because of the evidence, because you seem either ignorant of it or don’t care. See, I base my position on logic, and you don’t, yet you claim that I am the one being illogical. Twisted fundie thinking, brainwashed by the likes of Bill Keller so that you can’t or won’t accept truth if it slaps you in the face.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay says: “TBG.. why would God start us off as pond scum? Why? I’m sorry, but if we started out as pond scum, I fail to see what meaning our lives have. We are an accident that just happened to evolve to what we are today. No one purposed us. That is what you are proposing. I don’t dispute evolution in nature. I draw the line of us evolving from pond scum. ”
Why wouldn’t God start us off as pond scum? Why would our lives have any more or any less meaning whether we start off as pond scum or as dust? Pond scum is just dust rearranged into different patterns because of chemical and physical reactions. Why would that mean no one “purposed” us any more or any less than saying we were poofed into existence from dust? As usual, you completely misunderstand me when you say som ething like “That is what you are proposing.” That is NOT what I am proposing, but you may be too stupid to understand that. If so, I am sorry. If not, I’m even sorrier to be wasting my time trying to educate you. It’s not my job. I do care about protecting our children though. They do deserve to be taught the truth, and if that includes our coming from slime so be it.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I was TRYING to keep the fight, er, debate inside this thread but somehow one of my punches went wild and landed in Princessxxx’s thread about venting. My apologies to everybody.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Since I didn’t see the following addressed yet, I repeat it for emphasis:
So, on one hand you have tons of evidence all pointing to the same reality, and honesty and integrity as far as reporting that evidence goes. On the other side you have NO evidence at all supporting their position, and much deception, lies and lack of integrity in their discussion.
Without knowing that the above paragraph refers to the subject of evolution versus creation, which side would you tend to go with, LOGICALLY?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Also, why is it that it is the so-called Christians who are the ones telling LIES and distorting the truth on this subject? How is it honoring Christ to tell LIES and spread misinformation?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
and for the record, MOST Christian denominations are ashamed of the fundie position on evolution. It makes all Christians look retarded.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
yet the fundies say that if you accept evolution, that you are denying God. Bullshit! That’s their OPINION! But it is just as stupid to say that if you accept gravity, you deny God. It really is just as stupid as that.
LikeLike
dorian said
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
While I am not surprised Kay misunderstands me completely and puts words into my mouth that are the complete OPPOSITE of what I actually say, I was surprised that E_E misunderstood me about the patterns of energy thingie. To make it clear though, I do NOT agree with what E_E says he thinks I meant.
I thought most people know that matter and energy are the same, and that our bodies are patterns like whirlpools with energy flowing in and out of them, and that the patterns eventually dissipate (the death of the body) but the energy existed before that pattern and continues to exist in other forms afterward.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Try as I might, I cannot put myself into the fundie mindset. Fundie minds must be either at a very simple level with much missing, or perhaps with all the wires crossed, maybe some electrical shorts, blown fuses, etc. This would be a great image if someone could create a graphic of a fundie brain with loose wires inside, sparks flying, and great blank spots where other people are able to reason.
Kay, Kay, Kay…why is it that you STILL twist what I say into the complete OPPOSITE of what I say? I think I am being clear the first time I say it. I go back and re-read what you distort and can’t see how you are getting the interpretation you get from it. Wow.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I didn’t say the following, but this is what Kay THINKS I said:
“We are an accident that just happened to evolve to what we are today.”
Look back at my posts explaining evolution, about how whoever or whatever caused the elements and conditions to be the way they are made it not only possible but INEVITABLE! It is no accident.
Put certain ingredients together under certain conditions and they react in certain ways because of what they are and what the conditions are. Whoever or whatever made the “laws” of chemistry and physics made this so. Of course what are called “laws” of science are simply observed regularities of nature and not laws in the ordinary sense of the word.
Once life starts, and it is likely that the first life began as a complication of organic molecules under appropriate conditions, then it evolves. If it isn’t fit to survive in whatever environment it is in, it doesn’t. If it is; it does. If when it reproduces there are some mutations that cause advantages over competing organisms, then those mutated offspring do better in THAT environment. This is natural selection, and if you note the word SELECTION again that means it is no accident. Geesh, creationists are really STUPID!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
lol Dorian.
My bass player has an original tune that I was putting words to (the scrap I wrote them on has been lost for some time now). Anyway, one of the lines goes “like monkeys at the fucking zoo, the universe is flinging poo!”
The cartoon you posted reminded me of those lyrics.
You don’t have to try to confuse a creationist. They are ALREADY confused about what is real, and apparently not as capable of reasoning as ordinary people. What is really scary is that there are so many of them.
It wouldn’t matter though if I was the ONLY person on earth who recognized their bullshit for what it is. The man who is right is a majority of one. Thank God that I am NOT the only one though, or I would question my sanity. Like I said, the evidence for evolution has been observed and tested and verified many times by millions of people over many years, and anyone with a computer and access to the internet can check this out for themself IF they have an open mind and heart to TRUTH.
Apparently Creationists don’t, and feel they have to distort the truth and even LIE to try to prop up their position. I guess they have to do that, since the evidence of the world God created sure doesn’t support their interpretation. Oh well.
As a society, we must stop trying to cater to the twisted Bronze Age world view of fundies and move on, but we must not allow wacko nutjobs like Sarah Palin or Bill Keller into positions of authority or power. Sadly, apparently there are MILLIONS of Americans and millions more gullible people around the world who will swallow the shit their religious leaders feed them even if it is absolutely contrary to what is true, real, or good.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I apologize TBG, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I also apologize for misrepresenting your view.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Apology accepted E_E. Having read my clarification, did I make my meaning more clear the second time around? about matter and energy being the same but in different forms, about the energy taking different forms but never being created or destroyed, etc.? I think it might be possible you could understand this. I do have serious doubts about Kay’s intellectual capacity though, based on the way she consistently apparently doesn’t have a CLUE what I’m talking about no matter how many times or how carefully I explain it.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
IF when people disagree, if each of them can explain the other’s point of view to the other person to that other person’s satisfaction, the odds are much better that even if the two parties still choose to disagree, at least there is greater understanding about what they are disagreeing about.
I think I can explain much of Kay’s point of her view to her in my words to her satisfaction. I *think* I have a pretty good idea of where she’s coming from based on her stated beliefs, values and sources of authority she quotes. On the other hand, when Kay tries to say what she THINKS I am saying, she frequently gets it wrong, often even the OPPOSITE of what I actually said. So what’s up with that?
The way it is now, when I have discussions with Kay, it is like I am talking to a three year old or a retarded person. I guess that just is part of being a fundie. If you’re like that, being a fundie is all that makes sense to you and you think it HAS to be that way for everybody.
A lot of churches and people try to recruit others to their points of view basically because of insecurity. I don’t care if ANYONE else agrees with what I say. I know what I know. I sometimes try to share that information for the love of God, for the good of humanity and for the good of the planet. Sometimes I feel like saying the hell with it though.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Since my main point still hasn’t been addressed, I will post it a third (and final) time. For more details regarding this summary paragraph, refer to post#22 of this thread:
So, on one hand you have tons of evidence all pointing to the same reality, and honesty and integrity as far as reporting that evidence goes. On the other side you have NO evidence at all supporting their position, and much deception, lies and lack of integrity in their discussion.
Without knowing that the above paragraph refers to the subject of evolution versus creation, which side would you tend to go with, LOGICALLY?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh and post#9 shares details of the dishonesty of creationists that is referenced in the summary paragraph of post#22 that I repeated (for the third time since the question has never been answered yet) in my last post.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, here are my answers to the two main points you raise in post #21 of this thread.
********************************************************
My point that God could have used an existing planet that was destroyed to create the earth that we have today. Which would not make God a “prankster” for planting evidence and it would also make Genesis true in the literal sense.
You don’t seem to want to address this. Because you really dont’ have an argument
(snip further assumptions and faulty judgements by Kay)
Wait a minute, you’re the one invoking an imaginary other world to account for the evidence of this one, and you say *I* am the one who doesn’t have an argument? OMG.
Your proposed imaginary earlier planet is a variation of the omphalos idea, that the earth was created with the illusion of age, fossils in place from creatures that never actually lived, etc. While that may be true, there is no reason to believe it is true and several reasons not to.
For one, that idea could be extended. Are you a man who last night dreamt you were a butterfly, or today are you a butterfly dreaming you’re a man? Are we batteries for computers lying in vats with electrodes plugged into our heads feeding us virtual reality like in The Matrix movies? Perhaps the universe was created last Tuesday, or a split second ago, with fake memories in place. These are useless ideas to base any science on. While they might be true, there is no possible way to test them.
Another reason to doubt your explanation is that the explanation I propose accounts for the evidence in a much simpler, more elegant way, without having to propose imaginary planets that we can’t observe or measure. The evidence of THIS planet can be explained as I did, so why invent imaginary ones to make the explanation more complicated.
***********************************************
Kay’s second point from post #21
And the other point is that you are an atheist. I visited your site (which doesn’t seem to be accessible now via your post name) and you clearly are an atheist based on what I read there.
Wow. I am most certainly NOT an atheist, and this demonstrates MY POINT again that you either have the mentality of a three year old or are retarded. At the very least you definitely have trouble comprehending what you read and understanding abstract concepts. Apparently to you if anyone doesn’t agree with the fundie interpretation of Christianity they are an atheist or the dreaded L word or both.
**********************************************************
There Kay, I have addressed those two main points you claimed I was avoiding. Are you happy now? Can you give a coherent response without drooling over yourself? Does your caretaker need to let you out of your strait jacket first? What? No strait jacket? Based on how warped your view of reality is, and how you can’t even read clearly written arguments without thinking they say the opposite of what they do, it seems you need one!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hey Kay, fair is fair. I answered TWO of your main points (although the comment is in moderation as I type this). Will you please do the courtesy of looking at post #42, read that summary paragraph, and give an honest answer based on what that paragraph says about which side you’d pick. This is a test of your ability to comprehend what you read.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay said: “My point that God could have used an existing planet that was destroyed to create the earth that we have today. Which would not make God a “prankster” for planting evidence and it would also make Genesis true in the literal sense.”
WTF? Why? How retarded ARE you, Kay? It would NOT make Genesis true in the literal sense, because Genesis says NOTHING about using parts from another planet to make this one. Can’t you see how crazier and crazier you have to become to try to rationalize a literal reading of Genesis. It’s so clear when you read it as allegory, but when you take the fundie path this is what you have to resort to. Wow. All I can say is, wow.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, allow me to answer the question that you have posed to Kay. You ask which position would one choose:
1. the one with “tons of evidence all pointing to the same reality, and honesty and integrity as far as reporting that evidence goes” or
2. the one with “NO evidence at all supporting their position, and much deception, lies and lack of integrity in their discussion.”
I choose No. 1. A no-brainer. Could you make the questions a little more challenging?
That said, I hold the position that there exists a personal Creator Who revealed Himself through the Bible. So I guess that makes me a creationist.
Here’s a question for you: Is there a distinction between data and the interpretation of data?
One question at a time, so I’ll stop right here.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I’m a creationist too, Synapseaxion, but because the situation of this controversy actually is the way I summmarize in that question you answered, it seems pretty obvious, a no-brainer as you put it, that the Creator used evolution as a tool of creation.
To answer YOUR first question (I presume there will be more?) Yes Synapseaxion, there is a difference between data and the interpretation of that data.
That is a common argument used by creationists, to claim that they are looking at the same data but with a different world view. The point I’m trying to make is that one has to go to incredible contortions of logic that basically amount to a denial of reality to try to rationalize a literal reading of Genesis as being true. Also, based on what creationists say, it seems they are NOT looking at the same data. Most creationists seem genuinely unaware of what data exists.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
That’s another thing, Synapseaxion. So many creationists portray this as atheism versus religion, or as science versus religion, when it is nothing of the kind. Evolution has nothing to say about God, but that doesn’t mean it denies God. If that is the argument creationists are going to use, that accepting an observed fact of nature denies God, then why don’t we hear them screaming that we shouldn’t teach children gravity happens?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
MOST mainstream Christian denominations accept the fact that evolution happens just as they NOW finally accept that the earth goes around the sun instead of vice versa as one INTERPRETATION of the Bible teaches.
Please if you will, since you answered mine and I answered yours, may I ask you a second one (and Kay or anyone else can join in. I prefer if whoever joins in at whatever stage this discussion progresses takes the time to answer each of the questions up to that stage in order when they jump in.
Does your faith in a personal God depend on evolution not being true?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oops I had already asked a question (why don’t we hear creationists screaming about the teaching of gravity) before making my formal request…sorry. scratch that one, not from the commentary (it IS a valid and important point to consider) but from the list of questions to be answered by those participating, at least for now. I may ask that question later if the discussion heads that way. Please consider the personal faith in God question of the post above as the second of my questions to be answered by those willing to participate.
One can make comments explaining one’s answer, but it is SO easy to interject questions, even rhetorical ones, into one’s explanation and for the answers to ramble on (as I do but I’m trying to control myself really I am), that it is important to specify WHICH is the one question at a time one wants to contribute to this version of this debate. Thanks.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hey, maybe from now on we should use bold text to emphasize THE question and possibly use bold text to emphasize our answer to that question?
Btw, for the coding to indicate “bold” I usually use “strong” instead of “b” because screen readers for blind and other people recognize “strong” and will render it differently but may not recognize “bold” per se. At least that’s the way it USED to be (I learned that a few years ago in coding my web site to be accessible to people with disabilities).
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oooh oooh oooh! Let me save that personal God question for later. I just thought of another that is similar in style to the one you asked, and it’s SO COOL I want to use it instead to try out this new “bold” idea for these posts.
Here’s a question for you: Is there a distinction between Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG, clearly I’ve got you flustered… your insults have increased dramatically and are also more direct.
It took you awhile to answer my questions / points which are what I think p*** you off and also the point that according to you we should teach children that we all evolved from pond scum… I think you really do see how STUPID that actually is.
Our evolution from pond scum (or whatever) really does imply that we are an accident. And that God does not exist… come out of the closet already!
You don’t want to admit that you are an atheist because you get more acceptance of your biased anti Christian theories if you pretend to be a believer.. and you say you are honest and detest lies from others??? Who do you think you are FOOLing?
Look.. it really boils down to this.. either you believe in a Supreme Being (who has no limits) or you believe in science. And that doesn’t mean that I’m saying that Creationists do not believe in science as real and factual. It means that you are choosing to put your FAITH in either God or science.
You are clearly putting you faith in science and Creationists are choosing to put their faith in God.
Creationist are the least ignorant of the two groups for this reason that I will point out again… science CANNOT explain our existence… it explains the process of existence but again it CANNOT explain how existence came to be. Science argues AGAINST our existence!!
YOU and all atheists are extremely IGNORANT for not recognizing this FACT. Oh, you can say, as you pointed out earlier.. this theory or that theory as to how it all began (funny stuff btw) but guess what.. they are not testable either.. just like my recycled planet theory.
So, I think that makes us about even… and it does NOT make believers in God “village idiots”. Creationist do not dismiss science. The dispute is to how it all began.
As I’ve said over and over, do not eliminate scientific findings and HONEST research from classrooms. But do NOT insist it is fact because the scientific community who overwhelmingly puts their faith in science over God believes it is fact.
I don’t understand why you are so insistant on not letting children decide for themselves what is fact or not. It is doing no harm to call it theory instead of fact. Why are you so against that?? No one should TELL anyone what to think… they should just provide the evidence. To do otherwise is very arrogant.
Genisis 1:2
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
The earth existed but was formless and empty. Was it always this way? It doesn’t say.
For people who WANT to believe in science INSTEAD of God… they are getting what they want.. what they are looking for. God isn’t going to stand in their way… He gave us our free will to believe what ever we wanted.
He didn’t “plant” false evidence… He is asking for our faith, for us to CHOOSE Him. And for all of the science minded people who may be struggling with this, He gave this ultimate FACT… science CANNOT prove how it all began. YOu can either choose to ignore that or realize it.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
a digression back to an earlier post…
When Kay said that my position was we evolved from pond scum (again an example of her putting words into my mouth, my those dishonest creationists) I went along with it. Just today I invited those on the talk origins newsgroup to peruse this thread of this blog and participate if they feel willing. herheyh corrected me on the pond scum thing, and as one who loves truth I admit my error and will never use that again (unlike creationists who continue to spread LIES even after they have been proven to be LIES)
I cut and paste the following from his talk origins post
Minor pedant point. If by “pond scum” you mean chloroplast-containing single-celled algae, humans (as well as at least most other metazoan animals) did not evolve from “pond scum”. Humans and pond scum did share a common ancestor, but that ancestor was almost certainly not chloroplast-containing. That is, pond scum (even the first organism, likely now extinct, that met the criteria of being pond scum) was not our ancestor. Just a very distant cousin.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
No Kay, you apparently don’t get the concept that one can believe in a Supreme Being, even the God of the Christian Bible, AND use science to describe his creation.
And as I said, I was NOT the one who said *I* believe we evolve from pond scum. That was YOU putting words into my mouth AGAIN and I went along with it because that is a close enough approximation if one takes pond scum to mean simpler organisms ancestral to us. Yes we DID evolve from simpler forms of life that eventually became fish, amphibians, mammals, primates. yes we ARE apes. Children should be taught what is known to be TRUE as long as we know it way beyond any reasonable doubt, as we do for evolution. YOU are the one in denial, and I notice, you have not yet answered MY QUESTION even though I repeated it THREE TIMES!
So you think little children are intelligent enough to decide what is fact or fantasy? They need to be taught how to reason critically. I like your idea of showing them the evidence. That is a good one, Kay. So, show them the evidence for evolution. Then show them the evidence for a literal reading of Genesis style of creationism. What? There ISN’T any? Oh, too bad!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
As for your obsessing over the “ultimate Fact” issue. Even if science at this point cannot explain the ultimate origins of the universe or of life, it CAN and DOES explain what is here now, including the evidence of past processes such as evolution and gravity that still exist.
I am frustrated enough to call you names, kay, because your repeated ignorance and outright STUPIDITY are almost unbelievable. It’s amazing to me that you can read at all (even though you apparently do not or can not understand what you read) and type, etc. considering the level of your arguments, and how STUPIDLY they are wrong, I’d be amazed that you don’t need somebody taking care of you 24/7.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay claims “Creationist do not dismiss science. The dispute is to how it all began. ”
No, they dismiss science. Science knows we share common ancestry with chimpanzees and other living creatures, as surely as we know that the earth is not flat and that the sun doesn’t go around the earth. As surely as we know gravity happens, we know evolution happens. Creationists DO dismiss this. Why?
The dispute is NOT over how it all began. As I’ve said more than once, and apparently it doesn’t matter how many times I say it you are still too STUPID to get it, it doesn’t matter if science cannot as yet (and maybe never will) explain ultimate origins. Science can and does explain what is here now, what we can observe and measure, and that includes evolution. Besides, the ultimate origin of the universe and the ultimate origin of life are subjects that are NOT addressed by evolution, so if those are REALLY what the dispute is all about, then creationists should have no problems with their children being taught in schools that humans are highly-derived fish.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
and again, Kay, I am NOT an atheist. I am also not a liberal. So get over it. Words do not necessarily mean what YOU define them to mean by your twisted logic.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Kay religion cannot explain how it all began either. Also you are doing a lot of implying, and saying that there are ultimatums. You basically just said you either believe in science or God. That is a very ignorant thing to say. Or if someone says science is a suppliment to Genesis, you also say its wrong. What if a child came to that conclusion? That the theory of Evolution could go together with a belief in a Supreme Being organizing everything. Of course that child would be wrong, and arrogant. What if that child actually read the book of Daniel. Which actually explains how God inspired prophets, through visions and dreams mainly. Sometimes through Angels. Why? Because Kay’s God rejects science, because that is what Kay is implying and saying. Kay is saying that science cannot explain the process, God went through. Kay is saying that God verbally told Moses (theologically it is impossible for a man to hear the actual voice of God. An Angel had to seal Moses into a rock when God physically spoke to him. And of course it states in Daniel that visions and dreams are God’s way of talking to us. That the inspiration found to write the Torah was in this way. (That is the main conceptual idea, I was paraphrasing passages. And telling you the meaning of those passages.) So Kay is saying when Moses saw creation through the eyes of God, Moses understood everything he saw. Which could be true, but with the actual understanding of the time he would only be able to describe what he could. And we know through scripture that God exists outside of time and space as we know it in our physical bodies. So the whole process could be a conceptual idea rather than a literal one. (The funny thing is that the Hebrews actually came to that conclusion BEFORE the theory of evolution. And that Rabbi’s using scripture have predicted the point of creation at around 13 billion years.) The theory of Evolution is a theory based on physical evidence on God’s process. Many evolutionists believe that God used evolution as a tool.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
yep E_E, that’s kay, doing a lot of implying and making ultimatums, also known as creating false dichotomies. The false dichotomy is something characteristic of fundie thinking, the either-or black-or-white all-or-nothing routine. Real life is sometimes more complicated than that. As for me, well, as kay points out I’m obviously p—ed off at her. Obviously she is here to teach me patience. God only knows what I’m here for.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
TBG said ” Even if science at this point cannot explain the ultimate origins of the universe or of life, it CAN and DOES explain what is here now, including the evidence of past processes such as evolution and gravity that still exist.”
to be more clear, science has tentative (not absolute) explanations of what is here and now, that explains the evidence of past processes in a logical consistent manner and is not contradicted by ANY of the evidence. If new evidence is found that contradicts a scientific idea, then that idea is scrapped and not used any more. Scientists then have to come up with something that explains the new evidence AND STILL ACCOUNTS for all the old evidence too in a logical consistent manner.
I think it is this uncertainty of science that makes some people uncomfortable, that it doesn’t claim absolute truth. But when those people cling to an interpretation of Genesis that has been proven to be false, what about that? Then they invent incredible distortions of reality and contortions of logic to try to rationalize what is real with that interpretation, and THEY get p-ssed off that some other people won’t buy their bullsh-t.
While science does not and never will be able to claim absolute truth, by being open to what the evidence is and to having ideas changed if necessary to account for new evidence, and by being self-correcting (scientists are the ones who discover and expose fraud committed by other scientists), it gets closer and closer to truth. IF there are conflicts between what is discovered and what somebody THINKS the Bible says, it MIGHT be that we are having our faith tested by some insecure or cruel Deity who wants to see whether or not we’ll take a literal meaning of a Bronze Age book versus what we can observe and measure directly, but I wouldn’t want to believe in a Deity like that and a in my opinion a Deity like that really isn’t worthy of being worshipped.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
and again, I really do not care if many people don’t accept the fact of evolution. Anyone can believe whatever they want to believe. But when it comes to the education of children in public school science classrooms, what should be taught is what is known, and one should not give equal time to a competing idea if that idea cannot explain the evidence at least as well.
To be fair, creationism as defined by many people (a literal reading of Genesis) deserves maybe thirty seconds at the beginning of the semester in a science classroom. The teacher could say something like “I am going to teach you about evolution, which has much evidence supporting it. Some people disagree with this for religious reasons, and you can learn their opinions in the sociology classroom across the hall.”
it would NOT be right to devote equal time in a science classroom to creationism because as I pointed out there isn’t any physical evidence that supports a literal reading of Genesis. I personally would LOVE to see a public school science classroom where they devote ALL the time solely to the creationist position, just so the children could learn what the evidence is and how to analyze it. The problem with that is it would be a government-run school teaching children that their parents’ religious beliefs are full of sh-t, so it ain’t gonna happen.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, thanks for answering my question. The question was: Is there a distinction between data and the interpretation of data? You said, yes. Good.
So we can agree then that the mountains of data out there can be claimed by both sides as THEIR mountains of evidence for their particular interpretation, right? Meaning, it is not really the data that is in question, but the authority of the interpreters, right?
Here is the single question on the table right now: What makes one biologist with a Ph.D. more authoritative than another biologist with a Ph.D.?
You also asked: Does your faith in a personal God depend on evolution not being true?
No, my faith in a personal God does not depend on evolution not being true. It depends on the testimony of eyewitnesses and the evidence of the kind of foreknowledge that humans do not have. But even if I had never come to know that personal God, my faith would still be in a supreme Intelligence of some sort because of, and only because of, the scientific evidence.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
While both sides of this controversy COULD claim the mountains of data as supporting their position, the cold hard truth (as far as creationists go) is that when they face off against evolution in a fair fight in a court of law, they have nothing, literally NOTHING, that they can show as physical proof from the evidence of the world that supports their interpretation.
What’s true or not scientifically isn’t decided in law courts. These cases arise because of cultural conflicts, not scientific ones.
You did answer my question about whether or not your faith in a personal God depends on evolution NOT being true. Good. Okay so I’ll do yours now.
One possible difference could be the credentials and reputation of the school that issued the Ph.D. to the biologist. Another could be if one biologist has done more research or been published more than the other, and whether or not his findings have been verified by other sources. So there COULD be a difference in the value of one biologist’s interpretation of the same data compared to another.
Why don’t you do my next question now, then I’ll do another of yours. Is there a distinction between Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
btw, most biologists accept the fact of evolution to an even greater percentage than for scientists in general, and for scientists in general the agreement is about as close to unanimity as any subject known to man.
Do you know about “Project Steve”, the list of only those scientists named Steve (or variants thereof) who say evolution happens. It was a joke response to the lists of purported scientists listed by some creationist web sites saying evolution doesn’t happen. Some of the credentials of those purported scientists on the creationist’s lists are shady or shaky. But the list of those scientists ONLY named Steve is much longer than any of the bogus creationist lists, their credentials are valid, some of them are even Nobel Prize winners!
I do NOT agree with you that “it is not really the data that is in question, but the authority of the interpreters, right?” because the creationists ignore much of the data. It IS the data that is in question.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
for your faith to be based on the testimony of eyewitnesses is a rather shaky foundation.
First off, for many of the events people weren’t around to witness them. Secondly, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Trying to share what you’ve seen using words also has inherent limitations. One really can’t communicate what one has experienced using language. One can try, and maybe get close if you’re lucky, but whoever hears or reads your words always has different associations than you for those words. Finally, when one gets into the issue of translating from one language to another, especially if it goes through several languages to get to yours, it is even MORE complicated!
interpretations on top of interpretations on top of interpretations…sounds like nothing reliable to put your faith in.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
To repeat, Synapseaxion
While I do agree with you that there is a difference between the data and the interpretation of that data,
I do NOT agree with you that “it is not really the data that is in question, but the authority of the interpreters, right?” because the creationists ignore much of the data. It IS the data that is in question.
The data is the territory. The interpretation of that data is a map of the territory. Maps can be of different types focusing on different aspects of reality, political maps, topographical maps, resources, etc. A problem many people have is confusing the map with the territory. Like with zen being a finger pointing at the moon, many people instead of following where the finger points end up sucking it for comfort instead.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Okay that last paragraph of my last post is a bit off topic. I’m struggling to communicate what I’m trying to say…
Again though, it IS the data that is in question. Many if not most creationists who are opposed to evolution seem genuinely unaware of what data actually exists, much less what it means.
When one looks at the data and realizes each piece is explained in a logical consistent manner by evolution happening, and that sometimes data of completely different types corroborate each other, that the idea of evolution explains it logically and consistently, well then…when there is SO MUCH data pointing to the same reality, it seems senseless to deny the fact evolution happens.
I think it is important that we make a distinction between creationist as usually used (which generally means someone who holds to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis as being historical and scientific fact) versus creationist as someone who believes in God, whether a personal God or not, whether the Christian God or not, but accepts evolution as a tool of creation.
MANY Christians DO accept the fact we are related to monkeys, and see no problem with that, just as they accept that the earth is not flat because that is what the evidence shows us.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said ” Even if science at this point cannot explain the ultimate origins of the universe or of life, it CAN and DOES explain what is here now, including the evidence of past processes such as evolution and gravity that still exist.”
I don’t disagree with this. But I don’t believe that humans evolved from pond scum or that it is a “common ancestor”…(that’s funny too btw). I believe that humans can be an exception to the evolution process… I believe that we are God’s special creation. I believe God’s capabilities are limitless, obviously you believe otherwise. That anything that goes against your precious scientific evidence is “practically retarded”.. just like our existence btw.. which goes against any scientific logic. So I guess existence is “practically retarded” too.
And EE, if you look back you will find that I have acknowledged over and over that God created the science. That evolution is God’s process. But I also believe that there are some things that God doesn’t want us to know and how our existence came to be is one of them. God did not give us the capability to understand how it all happened. That is clear to me. Simply because even though our existence isn’t logical, we ARE here.
And I think that I am leaning towards the belief that the earth was recycled from a previous existence that was preserved in the rocks. And that Genesis is literal and accurate… this new earth is 6000 years old just like the Bible says. Children should be taught the theory of evolution of an earth that is millions of years old and also the theory of Creationism and that the earth that we have today is only 6000 years old. And what they SHOULDN’T be taught is what to believe as fact according to the Bicycling Guitarist.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
what they should be taught is that one side (evolution) has tons of evidence that shows it happened, and the other side (literal creationism) doesn’t have ANY, none, nada, zilch. Then let them decide which makes more sense to them, sure.
IF humans ARE an exception to the evolution process, then why are there fossils that clearly show us evolving from apes, why do our bodies match a chimp muscle for muscle, nerve for nerve, bone for bone, and why are there things such as endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes at the same place in our DNA as in chimp DNA?
These are legitimate questions, and your answer seems like a looney crackpot explanation. It IS amazing to me that you say you might be willing to accept that other living creatures evolved, just not humans. Don’t you think that smacks of Pride? Don’t you know that’s one of the seven deadly sins?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
if you’re leaning towards the imaginary earlier planet idea, please explain how that in any way supports the idea of Genesis being literal. You are ADDING stuff to the Bible, what you’re not supposed to do!
LikeLike
princessxxx said
yes, i want to hear more about the imaginary prior planet.
i saw some old toad that must have been 100yrs old preaching about that the other nite on one of the christian channels.
apparently god created the earth and satan lived there for millions of years with the rest of the castaway angels. then god destroyed it and rebuilt it in 6 days. or rather, should i say, refurbished it.
and another crazy quack lady creationist saying that not only did god let adam name the animals, adam got to decide that a cow says moo and a pig says oink and a bird goes chirp chirp that ostriches and penguins should not fly.
and the krak whore says,”krak”
and they were saying this stuff is in the bible. where?
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
I am not speaking for creationists in general, TBG. I am speaking only for myself. Can this be a discussion between two minds, and forget about the “they” and the “we” for now?
Have you read the transcripts of the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial? Maybe not, or you would not say that the creationists had literally nothing to show as proof (science does not deal in proofs, by the way). In any event, you are correct that science is not determined in a court of law. So I guess court decisions are irrelevant to the validity of scientific conclusions, and we might as well move on.
You say that one possible difference between two biologists with Ph.D.s is the school that they attend. Well, that doesn’t really apply because there are biologists from accredited and reputable universities who accept creation.
And basing your preference of authority on quantity of published research or size of peer-group support cannot apply because Galileo was not supported by the scientists of his day, nor was the quantity of his research larger than the body of work produced by the dissenting scientists of his day. Yet he was right and they were wrong. So we can’t really rely on number of supporters or quantity of research as being absolute evidence of the correctness of a position.
So the bottom line is: We can’t rely just on the qualifications of a scientist or the number of supporters of the theory he/she holds, or the extent of their research. Rather, it is up to each of us to THINK FOR OURSELVES, weigh the evidence for ourselves, and trust that our minds are balanced enough in judgment, clear thinking and reasonable enough that we should be able to think things through for ourselves.
So my next question for you is this: Is it more important to rely on what others say about the scientific data, or to rely on our own understanding of the issues, AFTER investigation of the data and/or the positions on both sides?
Okay, so your next question was: Is there a distinction between Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture?
Yes, definitely, there is a distinction between Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. The same rules apply to Scripture that apply to science. We cannot live our lives by the beliefs of others. We can and should weigh the opinions of others, but when all is said and done, we should accept for ourselves only what convicts us as true. And, at the same time, we must give our fellow human beings the freedom to live by their own convictions.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
What I like is the idea of presenting the evidence for both sides to the children, then letting them decide what makes sense to them: tons of evidence supporting evolution versus NO EVIDENCE AT ALL supporting a literal reading of Genesis. Gee, I wonder which they’ll pick?
It’s like Synapseaxion said, it’s a no brainer. Why don’t I make the question more challenging. I answered his question, then he tried to say that I was agreeing that the data is not the issue, only the interpretation. Bullshit! The creationists ignore much of the data and distort the rest. They have to, poor idiots, because if one does look at the evidence with an open mind and heart to truth, it shows that their INTERPRETATION of the Book of Genesis is either wrong OR their God is a malicious prankster. It must suck to be so stuck on a world view that is proven FALSE that one has to invent incredible contortions of twisted logic and denials of reality to try to rationalize it.
Oh by the way, just this morning I *finally* got a recording of my cover of the Beatles song Help! that is much better than any I’ve posted before. Many of my previous efforts were instrumental, guitar only with no vocals, because I certainly ain’t no Beatle. Also, I am The Bicycling Guitarist, not The Bicycling Singer. However, this latest version DOES have a vocal track. I asked some people if my singing sucked enough that I should remove that track and post the song as an instrumental. They assured me it sounds okay, but maybe they were just being polite. Anyway, it is in the link to my name for this post and I also put it here in the content:
[audio src="http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/multimedia/mp3/20091213-help-take10.mp3" /]
I’d be honored if you Princess, or Dorian, E_E, heck even Kay, would listen to it and let me know what you think. I’m afraid to hear Kay’s comments though. I have been rather insulting to her personally lately due to my extreme frustration that comes from trying to reason with somebody who has been conditioned to reject facts for faith.
LikeLike
chrustchev said
Kay~ms said
Sorry, but since there is no evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old but tons of evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that a 6000 years old planet would mean that all science – not just evolution, would be sheer nonsense. Besides the striking fact that there is no theory of creation. Saying goddidit because that’s what the bible says is not evidence. It is idiocy – interpreting myths created by primitive populations as scientific fact.
It takes more than faith to falsify evolution!
LikeLike
princessxxx said
thank you
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hey Synapse…yes I did read the Kitzmiller trial judgment and some of the transcripts. NOVA did an excellent episode on this too called Judgment Day.
I do NOT base validity on the number of people who think something is a certain way. The person who is right is a majority of one. I love truth, which is why the way the creationists consistently distort it and out and out LIE about this subject really pisses me off.
Yes there are biologists from real schools not bullshit Christian camps that do believe in creation. However, most if not all of them also accept evolution as a FACT of nature, one of the aspects of God’s creation that we are blessed enough to be able to perceive, reason about, and make predictions from.
Just because some scientists, even biologists from accredited schools, believe in creation doesn’t mean they believe in a literal reading of Genesis. How could they, when the evidence of the world clearly falsifies such an interpretation?
A quote from Heinlein applies here, from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long. Most scientists are bottle washers and button sorters.
We’re not using the bold idea I had for indicating THE questions and answers, but that’s okay. To answer your latest question addressed to ME personally (thank you, I feel special now):
In the final analysis, we always make decisions based on what we know at the time, including what sources to trust.
I have studied the evidence for decades now, and the relative arguments of scientists versus creationists (I mean of course the literal Genesis folks here). What gets me is the tremendous amount of evidence of so many different types that is so neatly explained AND predicted by evolution (as the discovery of Tiktaalik demonstrated), the corresponding LACK of such physical proof supporting the creationist side, the self-correcting factor of science, the corresponding lack of integrity among creationists, and how creationists misstate the nature of science, the amount of the evidence, twist and distort quotations by scientists to imply they said the OPPOSITE of what they actually said (as Kay has done to me several times the past few months), and so on…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have SEVERAL comments awaiting moderation, lol.
I really am exercising restraint here… really I am!
Thank you E_E for providing this playpen.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i know, thanks e_e, it’s fun isn’t it?
i listened to your song. i liked it.
unfortunatley overnite i evolved into a melon collie,
so it kind of made me sad a little,
but now when i read your posts i can read them in your voice.
i asked dorian to send a link to one of his songs once and he sent me a link to a chord.
just a chord.
d9.
liberal and lazy,
just how i like ’em.
oh and ps, i’m trying to convince my friend to move out to wyoming and dig up dinosaurs instead of his 9 to 5 job now.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I’m glad you brought up Galileo, Synapseaxion.
That is a famous case where the official position of the Christian church was flat-out contradicted by the evidence of God’s creation. He was bullied by bigots into recanting his statement of truth, but eventually truth prevailed. That is what will eventually happen with evolution too. Actually it doesn’t matter whether or not anyone knows anything about whether or not the earth goes around the sun or whether or not evolution happens. Things are what they are; they do what they do, and the human race is slowly learning more about the wonder’s of God’s creation in spite of idiots trying to suppress truth and legislate ignorance into public school science classrooms.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Thanks Princess. I’m glad all over.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i sent you an email at your site.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oops, I just realized I had answered Synapseaxion’s question without giving one from me for him to answer.
I’ll go back to post #53 since it hasn’t been addressed yet:
That’s another thing, Synapseaxion. So many creationists portray this as atheism versus religion, or as science versus religion, when it is nothing of the kind. Evolution has nothing to say about God, but that doesn’t mean it denies God. If that is the argument creationists are going to use, that accepting an observed fact of nature denies God, then why don’t we hear them screaming that we shouldn’t teach children gravity happens?
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
But TBG, you did not answer my specific question. It was, again, as follows:
Is it more important to rely on what others say about the scientific data, or to rely on our own understanding of the issues, AFTER investigation of the data and/or the positions on both sides?
You answered: In the final analysis, we always make decisions based on what we know at the time, including what sources to trust.
I like your answer, but it does not exactly answer my question. There is a nuanced difference. I’m not asking how we make our decisions, but whether it is more important to rely on what others tell us about the data versus what we have figured out for ourselves after examining the proffered data. This is not to say that we must become Ph.D.s in biology, but rather, that we weigh the evidence offered by the Ph.D.s for ourselves. I hope we can get to the weighing of the evidence next, but first could we lay the groundwork?
So the question again, rephrased: Which is more important, to take the word of scientists as to their conclusions, or to investigate their presentations for ourselves before forming our own conclusion?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oops, that question was even further back than I thought, from post #50 instead of #53 as I mistakenly said in my previous post. My how this thread has grown, and so quickly too, and now I just made it even longer without contributing any useful content, except that I am willing to admit when I make a mistake and won’t repeat the misinformation, UNLIKE MANY CREATIONISTS!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Not everyone is qualified to analyze the data in certain ways. In order to completely investigate everything myself, I would have to be omniscient, and I make no such claims as a human. To answer your rephrased question then more specifically, it is more important to take the word of specialists who know how to interpret the data, and trust the self-correcting nature of science as well as basic human nature that if they are trying to pull a fast one, they will get caught eventually. By basic human nature, I mean the oneupmanship. If one scientist is falsifying data or interpreting it in a bogus fashion, sooner or later someone else who knows how to analyze that type of data will catch it and, to make himself more famous and put down the fraud, will go public with it. So even what some consider bad parts of human character can sometimes end up doing good!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
also, many if not most scientists are motivated by a love of TRUTH (as I am), and their motivation in exposing the fraud would not be to gain fame for themselves but to set the record straight. Heck, they might even report the fraud anonymously just to see the feathers fly.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
Okay, my question was: Which is more important, to take the word of scientists as to their conclusions, or to investigate their presentations for ourselves before forming our own conclusion?
Your answer was: it is more important to take the word of specialists who know how to interpret the data and trust the self-correcting nature of science as well as basic human nature that if they are trying to pull a fast one, they will get caught eventually.
At that rate, TBG, I’m not sure how much of a discussion I can have with you. I suspect that I would be merely having a discussion with your authority figures, one step removed. What good is that? I might as well go straight to them if I want to have a stimulating discussion. I imagine that you don’t think creationists should just unquestioningly take the word of their specialists, yet you are willing to do just that with your specialists. Is this then a case of “I am better at selecting specialists than you are”? Or “I am smarter than you” — for which there is absolutely no evidence at all?
Looks like we have as yet made no progress towards discussing the data. Let me try again. If, as you say, it is safer to place your mind into the hands of another who appears to be more qualified than you, then here is the next question:
Does the ability to think for oneself lie only with a chosen, elite few, and the rest of us, the “unwashed masses” must just listen, never question, and always acknowledge the danger of forming any opinions of our own, contrary to the favored few?
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i say “yes”, is that the correct answer?, do i get a prize?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
In other words, Synapseaxion, since I won’t go along with your rhetorical tricks whose ultimate purpose is to make it seem that creationism can explain the evidence in a logical consistent way and that any village idiot is just as smart about biology as highly-trained experienced professionals, no, I guess you are wasting your time. I’ve dealt with too much bullshit over the years to buy into that particular brand of insanity.
You DID agree to that very first question, right. SO, logically then, since the situation IS as I describe it, like it or not, you DO accept evolution as a fact of nature, right? NO? I thought not. Sheesh, fundies!
I will repeat it a FOURTH time since it’s been so long since I posted it (at least a day now lol):
So, on one hand you have tons of evidence all pointing to the same reality, and honesty and integrity as far as reporting that evidence goes. On the other side you have NO evidence at all supporting their position, and much deception, lies and lack of integrity in their discussion.
Without knowing that the above paragraph refers to the subject of evolution versus creation, which side would you tend to go with, LOGICALLY?
p.s. you gave a sane answer to that question. What happened to you after that?
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
Princess, I imagine it must be the correct answer — for you. I’m sorry that you feel that you do not qualify for the ability to think for yourself, though.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
“I am not speaking for creationists in general, TBG. I am speaking only for myself. Can this be a discussion between two minds, and forget about the “they” and the “we” for now?”
Oh.. that is going to be a hard one for him.. believe me. I don’t think he can do that based on my own experiences with him.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
synapseaxion, i’m not one of you, “unwashed masses”.
boy, did you get that one wrong.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I’ll answer your most recent question anyway, even though it seems you realize your bullshit will be called for what it is here. In fact, I’ll answer your question with another question, which you can choose to ignore or not.
Synapseaxion asks:
Does the ability to think for oneself lie only with a chosen, elite few, and the rest of us, the “unwashed masses” must just listen, never question, and always acknowledge the danger of forming any opinions of our own, contrary to the favored few?
Of course not, so why is it that creationists are as gullible as they are, that they will swallow egregious lles rather than acknowledge even the POSSIBILITY that their INTERPRETATION of a Bronze Age book written by and for Middle Eastern patriarchal goat herders with the world view and scientific knowledge of that time and place, MIGHT BE WRONG?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
“Have you read the transcripts of the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial? Maybe not, or you would not say that the creationists had literally nothing to show as proof ”
Surely he has.. he has just got this problem with making generalized biased and false statements that support his arguments.. like Jesus never fulled any of the Messianic prophesies…”NOT ONE!”. Or that no historian ever wrote about Jesus in the 1st century… none! He either doesn’t care about getting his “facts” straight or he is a blantant liar. He readily believes everything he reads if it agrees with his anti Christian / anti God views… no questions asked.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Oh yes, and watch out.. when he is losing the debate, he will start insulting you.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “I do NOT base validity on the number of people who think something is a certain way.”
Yeah, like the Project Steve list (“or variations thereof”).
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
lol Kay THE BLACK KNIGHT thinks I am “losing” the debate. We have the fossils sweetie.
The following is a transcript of the last part of that skit from the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail It’s roughly where Kay and I are at, with Kay as the Black Knight (gotta admire her tenacity, even if she is a looney!)
(The Black Knight continues his kicking)
Arthur: RIGHT! (He chops off the black knight’s leg with his sword)
Black Knight: (hopping) Right! I’ll do you for that!
Arthur: You’ll *WHAT*?
Black Knight: Come ‘ere!
Arthur: (tiring of this) What’re you going to do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I’m *INVINCIBLE*!!!
Arthur: You’re a looney….
Black Knight: The Black Knight ALWAYS TRIUMPHS! Have at you!! (hopping around, trying to kick Arthur with his one remaining leg)
Arthur shrugs his shoulders and, with a mighty swing, removes the Black Knight’s last limb. The Knight falls to the ground. He looks about, realizing he can’t move.
Arthur: Okay, we’ll call it a draw. Come, Pasty!(they “ride” away)
Black Knight: (calling after them) Oh! Had enough, eh? Come back and take what’s coming to you, you yellow bastards!! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!
THIS IS EXACTLY THE SITUATION WE ARE IN. KAY’S ARGUMENTS DON’T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON but she is SO STUPID SHE DOESN’T EVER REALIZE THIS. sheesh…fundies…truly the “village idiots” of any society.
LikeLike
chrustchev said
Help, my email inbox is overflowing. How can I turn reply notification off?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
chrustchev (and TBG) said: ” Sorry, but since there is no evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old but tons of evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that a 6000 years old planet would mean that all science – not just evolution, would be sheer nonsense. Besides the striking fact that there is no theory of creation. Saying goddidit because that’s what the bible says is not evidence. It is idiocy – interpreting myths created by primitive populations as scientific fact.
You both convieniently forget that science does NOT explain how our existence came to be… so evolution DOES NOT supply all of the answers. And when that is the case other views SHOULD be presented… and the other view is a Supreme Being. And the Bible is the only true source we have that presents this OTHER view. Saying there is no evidence of the Genesis account is YOUR opinion… remove your ignorance blinders and you will see plenty of evidence all around you.
When you can answer the ultimate question about how it all began then scream all you want about leaving Creationism out of schools.. until then… please shut up and let people believe what they want.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
That is but one example of how one-sided this debate is, that there isn’t ANY debate in the scientific community (or nearly none, to repeat, nothing in science is absolute) that evolution happens.
Most of the so-called “scientists” that deny the FACT of evolution are “bottle washers and button sorters” as Heinlein put it, and even of those many have shady credentials or NO credentials to be authorities especially in subjects that are not their fields of study.
Just for laughs, a pro-sanity group decided to see how many scientists they could get on THEIR list who are NOT in denial of the fact of evolution. They realized there would be millions if they didn’t limit it somehow (the acceptance of evolution among scientists and educated people worldwide is about as close to unanimity as humans can be on any subject. Contrast that with the bewildering number of Christian denominations who sometimes split over things as trivial as whether or not the communion cup should have handles!). SO they decided to limit it ONLY to scientists who are named Steve, ACCREDITED scientists that is, in other words, trained professionals who have put in the years and aren’t bullshit con artists trying to make asinine statements on subjects they know nothing about (that’s the creationist list that has those). Needless to say, even with those restrictions, (must be named Steve, must be a REAL scientist and not some idiot claiming false credentials), their list is FAR longer than the creationist list and it includes Nobel Prize winners. You could call them NO BULL prize winners, because they don’t swallow the shit and regurgitate it on demand the way you do, Kay….sheesh, fundies…
Keep talking, Kay, the more you say the more you prove my point!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Insults and movie references… great comebacks.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay the Black Knight village idiot screeches:
“When you can answer the ultimate question about how it all began then scream all you want about leaving Creationism out of schools.. until then… please shut up and let people believe what they want.”
I am NOT opposed to creationism being taught in public schools, and I strongly agree that people should have the freedom to believe whatever they want. However, creationism in its fundie form does NOT belong in SCIENCE classrooms because it AIN’T SCIENCE. The evidence does not support it; in fact it falsifies it. It makes no predictions that can be tested. It invokes supernatural causes that cannot be observed, measured or tested. This is why it does NOT belong in science classrooms.
Students can learn about different beliefs in comparative mythology, pyschology, or sociology classrooms. THAT is where the subject of fundie Creationism rightly belongs, along with other creation myths (some of which make a lot more sense and are more in accord with the evidence of the physical world).
So back off, MonKAY! Go eat a banana or something. Ever wonder why you grab one like a monkey does? hmmmm.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Insults and movie references, as off topic as they may be, still make MUCH MORE SENSE than the crap you spew, o Kay.
Imaginary planets? Every animal EXCEPT humans evolving? OMG…why do you have to twist your mind so much to try to rationalize your INTERPRETATION of Genesis? sheesh…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Someone please help Chrustchev! Kay and I are drowning him in email notifications of our posts!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
btw, I have TWO comments awaiting moderation lol lol lol
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, by the following quotation you demonstrate you don’t know how science works. (I’m trying to be nice and not call you names, Kay. It isn’t you I’m pissed at. It’s your stupid ideas and what they’re doing to God, America, our children, humanity and our planet).
Kay (hold my tongue…hold it!) says (whew…no name calling this time. YAY!):
You both convieniently forget that science does NOT explain how our existence came to be… so evolution DOES NOT supply all of the answers. And when that is the case other views SHOULD be presented… and the other view is
You are correct that science does NOT explain how our existence came to be. You are wrong (hold my tongue…ARRRGHH this is difficult!) to claim that I “conveniently forget” that. I have NEVER forgotten that and NEVER claimed that science CAN explain ultimate cause. I’ve even stated (more than once) that it is quite possible science will NEVER be able to describe ultimate causes, BUT I leave myself open to the possiblity that it might…
AGAIN Kay, you put words INTO MY MOUTH that I did NOT say that are in fact the OPPOSITE of what I HAVE said. Can you see this now that it has been pointed out to you (again)? I am not calling you any names this time, Kay. I am seriously trying to reason with you. Peace and Merry Xmas
YAY I DID IT! A WHOLE POST WITH NO INSULTS! WOO HOO!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “If one scientist is falsifying data or interpreting it in a bogus fashion, sooner or later someone else who knows how to analyze that type of data will catch it and, to make himself more famous and put down the fraud, will go public with it. ”
Yeah, I guess like what happened with the climate research scientists… I sure am glad a scientist came out on that one and pointed out the truth.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “You are correct that science does NOT explain how our existence came to be. You are wrong (hold my tongue…ARRRGHH this is difficult!) to claim that I “conveniently forget” that. I have NEVER forgotten that and NEVER claimed that science CAN explain ultimate cause. I’ve even stated (more than once) that it is quite possible science will NEVER be able to describe ultimate causes, BUT I leave myself open to the possiblity that it might…”
You convieniently (again) didn’t address my actual point (which is not that you forgot.. how about you IGNORE, how’s that?)… which I will clearify (my point) even more here…
Not only does evolution NOT answer the ULTIMATE question as to how it all began… now please listen to this part this time ok?…. Science argues AGAINST the logic of our existence… did you get that?? Science argues AGAINST the logic of our existence.
So with that being acknowledged… you are proposing that we teach children how it all progressed but just completely ignore how it all began and how the logic of science argues against existence. You say that you are for truth?? ALL truth or just the truth that you like? I propose that you are not for truth.. you may have convinced yourself that you are but I honestly do not think that you are. You are for anything that argues against the God of the Bible … period.
Dorian, I am entertaining the thought that maybe we already have our satanist.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
heck I just invited everyone at the talk origins group to come over, and now I see two of my better comments (the ones I like more anyway) are STILL in moderation!
I guess Chrustchev’s mailbox isn’t all that’s overwhelmed by our discussion, Kay. lol
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay says: ” Science argues AGAINST the logic of our existence… did you get that?? Science argues AGAINST the logic of our existence.
So with that being acknowledged… ”
EXCUSE ME? That is NOT acknowledged. Since we ARE here, it is illogical to say we shouldn’t be. wow. There you go making crazy statements and leaping to assumptions, again. wow.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay says: “You are for anything that argues against the God of the Bible … period.”
You’re not always wrong, Kay, but you frequently are. This is another example. What I am against are lies being spread as truth, that is, lies such as “there are no transitional fossils” and similar bullcrap spewed by creationists when ANYONE with a computer and access to the internet can find out what fossils have been found and, if sufficiently motivated, could at least TRY to see if they actually exist and are as described.
I am NOT against the God of the Bible. I AM against a literal reading of Genesis being taught as if it has as much scientific authority as evolution does. We have the fossils. We win!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
It’s amazing that with nearly everything she says, Kay manages to twist things around, leap to assumptions, and put words into people’s mouths that are the OPPOSITE of what is actually said.
Wow. If anyone doubts that being a fundie is akin to being retarded, Kay is providing abundant evidence for you to peruse. Check out what she says people say to what they actually say…complete OPPOSITE as often as not is what comes out of her mouth…her mind must be really twisted.
Latest garbage to catch my eye, from the same post I’ve already addressed twice (one comment in moderation lol):
KAY SAYS
you are proposing that we teach children how it all progressed but just completely ignore how it all began and how the logic of science argues against existence.
O kay, one step at a time. Like I said, you’re not always wrong. You got the first part right, that we teach children how it all progressed. Then BOOM you go making assumptions about what I believe that are WRONG! I never said we completely ignore how it all began. I have repeatedly said that such questions are currently outside the realm of science and thus do not belong in SCIENCE classrooms. These questions should be discussed in Mythology, psychology, sociology classes in public, or in whatever classrooms you want in private schools or home schools, churches, etc.
So AGAIN you make assumptions, put words into my mouth that are the OPPOSITE of what I actually say, etc. Do you see a pattern here? Are you that crazy that you can’t see how crazy that is?
Oh wait, the last bit…that it is ILLOGICAL for us to exist…uh huh. I see…Forget I asked anything about your sanity. One can’t reason with somebody for whom reasoning and facts don’t count as much as faith in an interpretation that is NOT supported by evidence.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
two MORE comments (really good ones too!) are in moderation now…who’s on mod duty today? I’m sorry!
Hey Princess, we need a graphic of a garbage truck please to haul off the garbage coming from Kay…there’s a lot of it.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh btw, the thread I started over at the talk origins web site this morning is already up to 75 posts. Woo hoo! Let’s have a race! We’re winning so far! Happy now, Kay?
Anyone want to play “poke the creationist”?
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Kay you are prejudice against science.. I bet even if you broke a bone you would not go to the hospital. The statement: Yeah, I guess like what happened with the climate research scientists… I sure am glad a scientist came out on that one and pointed out the truth.
Since scientists did come out and explain what many people called a cover up, I even referenced a valid source that had a scientist explain some of the things people misconceived. Because several scientists came out and pointed out the truth. Of course I do not understand your definition of LOGICAL and LOGIC because it is clearly not the same as the rest of the world.
Science argues AGAINST the logic of our existence… did you get that?? Science argues AGAINST the logic of our existence
That statement is wrong…did you get that?? That statement is wrong. Please explain to me what the words LOGIC and LOGICAL actually mean to you. Science goes against the logic of our existence. Not only does that not make any sense but you did not explain how it argues against the logic of our existence. I mean how does that even work? What is the logic of our existence then? The logic of how we are actually structured has been proven by science. The logic of the Human Genome has been found. TBG is saying a lot about fossils. But what about the physical proof that evolution is happening right now. Let’s take the appendix example. More Children are being born without them everyday. I was born without one. Oh and Different genes in the Human Genome seem to have had a purpose in the past but is no longer active. Or how people of African decent have an extra calf muscle that gives them more of a chance to run to safety from a predator. While the European Humans do not need that extra muscle and therefore does not have it. I mean small things in Human beings that differ from climate to climate, these things allow these different ethnic groups to survive in the climate the specific ethnic group is from. This is the physical evidence that is in motion right now that proves that we adapt and change. We evolve so we can survive in out current climate. It is not something that happens over night. It is very logical that this happens, because if it didn’t the human race would have been wiped out by predators a long time ago. So tell me where the absence of logic is…Unless you are going to start to claim the things I have heard many creationists claim. Some very racist things. And was taught by the Church to be true, until they were proven wrong.
And TBG is not a satanist. There are several reasons why, for one he has not said anything on the theology of a satanist. Again that’s just your prejudice coming out. And again you show the signs of someone who is brainwashed. You are showing signs of the behavior of someone who is in a cult.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
For one thing Kay, please for your own sake take a look at all the posts where I point out how you make assumptions about what someone (usually me) has said and then state your opinion of what they are saying, and how that is FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they (but usually me) actually said. If you heard of anyone else doing that, not about it being said about you personally, wouldn’t you think that person being talked about has some problems understanding other people?
It ISN’T just me that you have this problem with though, Kay. You have demonstrated it in conversations with other members of this blog too, and it makes it more difficult than it should be to have a conversation with you without becoming so frustrated as to resort to name-calling.
God bless you and yours. TBG
LikeLike
kay~ms said
“Since we ARE here, it is illogical to say we shouldn’t be.”
No it is not. What you are saying is that illogicality can’t exist.
You (and EE) tell me how you can get something from nothing… IT IS ILLOGICAL. It cannot be done. Your reasoning here is retarded… ” since we are here”… that makes it logical? … plenty of illogical things exist… precognition as one example.
This argument of yours is way worse than mine that the earth was recycled… way worse.
Our existence IS illogical and you not acknowledging that makes YOU ignorant… just like all of the “fundies” who you say ignore scientific evidence.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And EE, the emails were leaked… no scientist came out and corrected the lies and coverups.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
OMG KAY YOU DID IT AGAIN!
YOU PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH AND CLAIM I’M SAYING SOMETHING THAT IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I ACTUALLY SAY.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
shoot, finger slipped… what’s one more post entry now that the thread is already this long…lol
Anyway, as I was saying
KAY the person who THINKS she can express someone else’s point of view correctly but who ACTUALLY gets it WRONG quite often, even to the point of saying the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what that person says,
anyway…
Kay, who has this problem that she is apparently blissfully unaware of in spite of being told she has this problem and in spite of the PROOF BEING RIGHT HERE IN BLACK AND WHITE on the pages of this blog…
Kay THINKS that I have said “You (and EE) tell me how you can get something from nothing…”
I have NEVER said that….look around…try to find it. You won’t. Hey, would you like to make a bet with me about that? Think up some creative wagers if I lose or if you lose. Oh, I forgot, you ALWAYS win no matter what, just like the Black Knight.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “Oh wait, the last bit…that it is ILLOGICAL for us to exist…uh huh. I see…Forget I asked anything about your sanity. One can’t reason with somebody for whom reasoning and facts don’t count as much as faith in an interpretation that is NOT supported by evidence.”
What reasoning and facts do you have that our existence is logical??? Show me one experiment where you can get something from NOTHING.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
LOL Kay I just posted my reply about this.
I have NEVER said what you say I said…you have it wrong, completely OPPOSITE wrong, YET AGAIN!!!
I don’t need to bring any proof at all to the table. All I have to do is point out your errors that are SO EASY to point out because you are so consistent about jumping to assumptions and just as consistently being WRONG in what you are assuming!
OMG!
Kay, I will pray for you. Imagine it isn’t me saying this, and imagine I’m not talking about you but about someone else. Wouldn’t you agree such a person has a problem? That’s YOU, Kay.
OMG!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
You are a blessing to me Kay, and I greatly appreciate that you continued to share your views with me even after my frustration led me to call you names. It may be that you are here to teach me patience.
I hope in some way that some good comes to you from your encounter with me as well. We need people who think differently than we do, or else we would not know what we think because we’d have nothing to compare it to.
God Bless You and yours, Kay, and Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
dorian said
kay i’d like some of your tenacity for christmas.
e_e, i was born with two missing cuspids.
i listened to your cover of “help”, TBG. i liked it. great guitar playing especially on the turnarounds. vocals not bad, dylan style but more your own. i heard a lot of harmony there, can you overdub another vocal track? i saw a beatles documentary on history channel last night w/ the beatles doing commentaries. it was excellent. try and catch it sometime.
somebody say something about betting? a satanist here already? galileo’s email overflowing? do we have a learned creationist in synapse? who’s bringing in the unwashed masses? i have to read today’s thread entirely to catch up.
princess, i played my d9 chord in two songs today.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Dorain, does that mean you are in denial (D-nine-al)?
Okay that was a stretch, but I just made it up!
I may have scared synapse away. He (she?) showed excellent taste and restraint in posting only ONE question at a time, and focusing on that until it had been answered to his satisfaction, rephrasing it if necessary. I really liked that.
I could see where he (she?) was going, and it was kinda sneaky or maybe just ignorant when he made an assumption based on my answer and assumed I’d go along with his assumption too. At least his assumptions about what I say are in the ballpark, perhaps a foul ball but still in the ballpark. Kay’s assumptions though, wow, are on a whole ‘nother planet, an imaginary one at that!
Can ANYONE else besides me see the point I’m trying to share with Kay, not to “win” but to genuinely try to help her (although it is completely understandable if she wants to reject my help and that’s okay too). The point about how she claims she is good at understanding other people’s points of view that are different from her own. Yet the proof is in the pudding. Time and again, maybe even more than once in one message (there were SO many today I’m not sure now and too tired to check them all), Kay would put words into my mouth that expressed the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what I had actually said. Once, twice, three times would be bad but not that really significant. However, this happens a LOT, practically every time she opens her mouth (or fingers to type the words she is mistaken about).
Maybe it isn’t Kay. Maybe it is that my viewpoint is so bizarre that it is difficult for anyone else to comprehend. I might be willing to go along with that, as an ego boost (oh I’m so special). However, when something I’ve said is clearly expressed in black and white on the page and she quotes it and twists its meaning to the COMPLETE OPPOSITE, or assumes other times that since I disagree with her view that she invents me saying things I never said, well what do YOU think?
Fundies generally LOVE things to be black or white, either or, etc. Fundies love dichotomies, and sometimes will invent false dichotomies when there are other possibilities that they either seem unaware of, unwilling or perhaps even unable to think about. Such is the effect of the CULT-LIKE conditioning on their thinking processes.
Btw, thank you for complimenting my guitar playing in my cover of Help!. It is quite possibly the finest guitar playing of mine that has yet been recorded, although several of the jams of the last six months with the new bass player have been quite magical at times.
You’ll notice that my cover version is pretty close to the arrangement of the Beatles original. There are some differences. I play the spiraling arpeggion that George Harrison did each chorus in addition to the rhythm guitar of John Lennon for the verses. Also, in the first half of the second verse, my guitar emphasizes the vocal melody while in the original song, the first half of the second verse was played more like the second half of the second verse.
There is an incredible amount of subtlety in the music of this song, a LOT of stuff to be crammed into two minutes twenty seconds. For me this song is magical in a way I cannot explain. The music and the lyrics touch me more than any other song written by someone else. Generally, I only listen to my own music in my head and only play my own original tunes, but I heard this song from the time I was five years old and I have always loved it.
Yes, I could overdub the backup vocals. Those are amazing too. Sometimes they lead, sometimes they follow the main lyrics. Also, this is one of the few songs I know of where one could sing ONLY the backup lyrics and it is STILL a kickass song!
One problem I have with my overdubbing another vocal track is integrity. If I can’t perform it on stage singing both parts at once, it seems not right somehow to dub them on in the studio. For similar reasons, I have attempted to record the guitar to this song as one track with no overdubs. Sure, with a click track or something I could pick the best time I play a particular part and cut and paste it with the best playings of other particular parts from different recordings to make a super kick ass ultra version, but that would seem wrong somehow, kinda like cheating. What you hear in the guitar in me playing the whole song all the way through, no major flubs and no overdubs. It’s taken YEARS of me playing this song literally THOUSANDS of times to get it to this point.
Another problem I have with ME singing the backup vocals to ME singing the lead vocals is that it’s MY voice both times, and the chances of the separate tracks becoming muddled due to their having the same vocal sounds etc. would be greater. Like I said, this is by far my best effort to date, and when I die I have already asked my sister the doctor to play my latest OR best version of Help! at my funeral. FYI I will always post the latest OR best version I’ve done (and those might NOT be the same version) on the home page of my web site.
I could sure use sponsorship for some quality studio time. I have written literally hundreds of songs, but only a few dozen have been recorded and those were recorded by crappy amateur methods. Please try to get this cover of Help! some airplay on any stations you can think of who will play it, internet stations, college stations, etc.
A problem for it being played by “real” radio stations is that I did NOT write this song. I am “covering” it. There might be copyright or royalty issues involved with playing a Beatles song even if it is one’s own version of it (mine is pretty close to their version though as I pointed out). However, I am NOT charging anyone to download it or listen to it. I personally am not making a dime. Maybe if it were to be played for a charity cause or something nonprofit might make a difference? I do not know…
Forgive my rambling, but hey, this thread is SO long already just from today and I am winding down. Besides, none of us knows when our time will come. I might be dead by morning, and to me, honestly, that would be a blessing because life has been excruciatingly unbearable for me as far back as I can remember due to some screwed-up neurology.
However, that same curse may also be a blessing, even if not for me perhaps for somebody else. Because it is in an effort to ease that pain that I became The Bicycling Guitarist, and doing that is the only peace I have found in this life. IF there is such a thing as purpose or meaning for life in general or for individual lives in particular, my whole purpose might be for me to be seen by somebody else at a critical time in their life. Perhaps seeing something as bizsrre as somebody riding a bicycle while playing guitar will shock their consciousness to a new state of awareness, bring a smile to their face if they’re down, or otherwise change their world in a good way. One can only hope.
By the way, that doesn’t mean I think I’m anything special. I heard of a new age spiritual guru woman who supposedly at one time was in the attic of an insane asylum in a strait jacket when a cockroach crawled across her bare foot. Supposedly that cockroach triggered her enlightenment and now other people go to her for spiritual advice. Now that cockroach almost certainly wasn’t aware of the influence it would have on that woman. It probably just wanted to get to the other side of the foot like the chicken crossing the road. On the other hand, it may have been part of God’s plan, or maybe even an angel disguised as a cockroach. THAT’S the kind of stuff my mind ponders, not atheism, not satanism, as Kay MISTAKENLY ASSUMES!
So I might end up being as important as a cockroach. YAY!
God bless everyone
TBG
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have one LONG comment in moderation, but if anyone ever wants to even TRY to understand me, please do read it once it appears. It really isn’t that long. Peace
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh and if anyone does want to “Help!” my cover of that song to get some airplay, be sure to emphasize that the guy playing and singing it plays and sings like that WHILE RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE SAME TIME!
It seems to me that I would be a natural spokesperson for Rolling Rock beer. Isn’t it obvious? A rock and roller on a bicycle: Rolling Rock! Their company actually is involved in sponsoring some indy bands. I actually visited their web site a few weeks ago and proposed this idea. They haven’t written back yet, but maybe if enough people did it?
Here is the Rolling Rock web site.
Hey if anyone has connections with David Letterman, I’m sure what I do qualifies as a “stupid human trick.” Please forgive my blatant commercialism here. I actually do have artistic standards of integrity about not selling out. I have refused many offers over the past fifteen years to run ads on my web site, or put links to places I don’t personally approve of.
MY MOST IMPORTANT VALUES ARE NOT MEASURED IN DOLLARS. That is why my sisters have their own houses, and I am literally a starving artist. However, now that I am pushing fifty years old, and feel the icy hand of death much closer than in years past (although I have prayed for it every day all my life), I figure it wouldn’t be selling out too much to be a spokesperson for Rolling Rock beer, maybe even some other company. I would want to make certain that whatever company I am supposed to represent has good values regarding human rights and respecting the environment.
LOL again I ramble…My problems are nothing, I know…no matter how bad my problems are, they aren’t yours. I am sorry you have AIDS princess. I am sorry you lost many friends. I am sorry you are being treated like shit by agencies that are supposed to help you. I am sorry for whatever personal losses you have suffered too, Kay, and E_E, and Dorian, and OTA and everyone else on this blog and in the world. I *care*.
Okay, this time for real. NO MORE POSTS (at least not tonight). I swear I will wait at least twelve hours before posting again, although if I do wake up before then (my body’s sleeping and waking schedule is very erratic and ocmpletely unpredictable), I will probably peek to see if Synapse, Kay, Princess, or Dorian have posted anything new.
Bye for now, maybe forever, probably not but just in case.
I love you.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
okay I forgot to put the link to Rolling Rock.
THIS IS THE ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY LAST MESSAGE (tonight). I wouldn’t have done this, but I figured it was supposed to be included in the last message, so if I didn’t post the link, I’d be lying either way. Either I’d be lying about not posting again, or I’d be lying about including the link in the last message when I didn’t. Forgive me, or not. lol
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Kay get your facts straight. There was several scientists that explained what those e-mails where about. Again we are taking things out of context. There is more than just one thing, I mean we have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the 60’s. Hell greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the 80’s. So tell me with your logic how can there be a decline? It makes no sense, and scientists did have statements. Just none from the place where these e-mails were leaked from. Let me guess why…hmm some coverup? Or the fact there is an active investigation by the FBI and Interpol. So maybe just maybe they haven’t released a statement because they cannot. You do know this is a serious issue. Not just with the so called scientists cover-up (again there cannot be a decline in global warming if the gases known to cause the phenomenon have increased over the last 20 or so years. Simple addition and subtraction even a High School dropout can understand. Obviously though I am wrong about that last part.) But the fact this is Cyber Terrorism, in all courts of law in the world, hacking is labeled as a terrorist act. Just because it wasn’t done by a Islamic Fundamentalist group, and was probably done by a Christian Fundamentalist group, does not mean it isn’t what it is. IT IS TERRORISM AND IS A CRIME. I don’t trust this “leaked information” because A.)The authenticity of that information, as I tried to tell you before. And this is fact, the hack was either an inside job or a very talented hacker did it. and B.) Because I would rather die the most horrible death imaginable than to ever believe any kind of terrorists claims. The information could have been compromised whether it was an inside job or not. Both are very possible and according to the FBI Cyber Crimes Divisions SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) in this kind of case, inside involvement is investigated first. If it has been determined that inside involvement is not possible then the organization can formally clear up misconceptions. But oh noes, they didn’t make any statement to say the contrary must mean the victim of a crime, is actually part of some illogical conspiracy. The Cyber Terrorists will be found and brought to justice, and I hope they are held in a Holland Prison while they await trial. I also hope that no one hoping to run for the Republican President Nominations in 2012 is apart of this. Because if that person is, that person could also go to prison for a long long time. This being said now to address the answer to my question. The answer for one thing didn’t explain anything. Which tells me you really don’t truly understand either other perspective of this debate.
Actually I said it is my belief it is illogical i.e. mathematically more possible we were created by a higher being than just a bunch of right time right place random occurrences. I don’t believe in coincidences, luck, or random events. Nothing is random everything is a reaction to some kind of action. The ultimate beginnings is more of a philosophical term, that could be addressed in a World Religion class. That class would have to go over every major practiced and unpracticed religion that we know of. But that I believe would be the only correct place to put the creationism theory into a public school classroom, and it not be against the Constitution. I believe that our existance is perfectly logical, when you put things into context. A vessel that matches the same specification as Noah’s Ark, was found. Even though there was no real evidence of a flood, we really have not explored the earth fully yet, but the evidence that an Ark with the same dimensions was found. (It was fossilized and only the outline can be seen, but it existed.) Science has varified it is the actual ark. (Oh wait I am sorry, according to Kay carbon dating cannot tell you the age of an item. So according to Kay something that I have always seen as evidence of God existing (It was discovered in the 80’s), would have to be a hoax because science verified it. Not to mention that also according to Kay the Ark in question, which resides where the Bible said it did. Could very well be a hoax because the story of Noah’s Ark appears in the Qu’ran as well. So no physical evidence there, according to Kay’s logic.) It is MY belief that God has a process in creation, that it took a long time to actually do. That Moses saw time as God sees it, but God also perceives time differently (Scriptural Fact.) than humans do. So Moses saw what God sees as seven days may have been more like a billion years or so. I mean it would be very hard for a imperfect being to understand and perceive things just as God does. I am not saying God can’t make a human being do such a thing, I am saying it would be very foolish for God to give complete understanding to a human being in the Bronze Age and now. I accept that evolution happens, there is physical evidence of this. I also accept that we were created by God. There is also physical evidence God exists.
So now please explain how man and life’s very existence is illogical.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Well, I felt bad for saying what I said to Dorian about entertaining the idea that we already have a satanist here and now, after reading TBG’s recent comments I feel worse… I apologize TBG for saying that. I haven’t listened to your song yet but I will and I promise to give you an unbiased opinion. As for our debate.. I cannot, at this point, change my mind about that… sorry.
EE, I never said I believed there was a decline in green house gases… I never posted an opinion on climate change… I just presented an argument to TBG’s point about scientists. A fellow scientist did not bring those controversial emails with controversial information to light.. “hackers for hire” brought those emails to light according to a CNN World article.
EE said: “So now please explain how man and life’s very existence is illogical.”
I already did many times on this site… once again… you cannot get something from nothing.. that makes our existence illogical… I’m not talking about the process of existence, I’m refering to the birth of existence.
LikeLike
chrustchev said
37 this morning, I’m drowning!
37! Next maybe 42!
I won’t even read what you write, I will not reply as long as this goes no. But I will block you from my mailbox!
LikeLike
dorian said
do we have a prodigious troll in chrustchev?
TBG, one thing i forgot to mention -that cover of”help” was done while you were bicycling and that makes it extra special. yup, i noticed how you captured george’s scales going down and john’s rhythm guitar.it’s a complete piece, forget what i said ’bout overdub. beatles music appreciation is here again and even kids are getting to know it well! TBG, why not get this “help” cover on youtube? rolling rock is what you are, they should use you! i’ll send an email.
kay is sticking to her ‘one truth’, black and white, and all that her brethren believe in. so the debate will go on, with kay being keller’s champion.
oh, i’m definitely in D9 and in denial of having to bail on my biz and working for the corporation again.
i have a chord for kay: Gsus.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Well, that cover was not RECORDED while I was on the bicycle, but yeah, most of my guitar playing and songwriting takes place “on the road” literally!
There are many patterns of three in that song, three evenly spaced bass notes when going from one chord to another, three verses, etc.
There is fourness in the song too though, besides the obvious one of the time signature. That spiraling arpeggio of George’s consists of sixteen evenly-spaced evenly-stressed notes, played by picking four strings of a hand position then moving that hand position down three times one fret at a time picking four strings each time.
So that riff has four groups of four notes each, and what’s more that riff is played four times in the song (intro and the end of each chorus). That really reinFOURces fourness. But then, four groups of four notes played four times only references the number four three times, so it also reinforces the threeness in the song.
I haven’t really slept yet, and I have a doctor’s appointment in a few hours. I’m afraid to go to sleep now for fear I’ll miss it.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
To learn the strumming for John’s rhythm guitar part, I found a “basic track take 8” of the Help! recording sessions where the rhythm guitar is easy to hear. It used to be on YouTube, but it was taken down last time I checked.
Like I said, I’ve been practicing that song several years now many thousands of times. When I set media player to repeat, the original song plays three times in seven minutes, about twenty-five times in one hour.
There’s been more than once, actually MANY times, the past few years where I’ve played guitar along to the original song for four hours or more, which translates to playing Help! one hundred consecutive times in one sitting.
I think it would be a cool thing for a charity if I were to sit in some public place and play along to Help! for four hours, that is, one hundred times. People could pledge so many pennies per song to the charity, similar to walk-a-thons and the like. That would be fun for me. Sometimes I play the bass notes; sometimes I improvise lead, etc. I would play along to each instance of the song for the whole session though. I like the gimmick of playing Help! to “Help!” people. Again, though, royalties may get in the way.
IF the original Beatles song is being played in a public venue, then must somebody pay the Beatles something for each time it is played? Maybe if it’s a charity there are exceptions. I also think that the surviving lads and the estates of those departed would probably be willing to give permission if it’s for a charity. Dunno though. Sometimes the lawyers get in the way…
Also, I really don’t know if anyone else besides me can stand to listen to the same song one hundred times in a row. I know my daughter and my g/f are sick to death of that song. Seer the miracle cat likes it though.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Seer the miracle cat was born underneath my bed June 28, 2007. He can FLY, and this video proves it! He looks like a Siamese cat, but his mother Luna is a gray-striped tabby.
Chopper the dog (dressed as a French maid lol) sings in this video. She is a greyhound/shepherd mix and is a good dog. As a musician, I am impressed that she sings in tune and in time, and with much heart and soul. She’s old now, and may be put down this winter if basic mobility becomes too painful for her due to arthritis. 😦
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have two comments awaiting moderation.
Hey this boxing ring filled up pretty much in a day or two. It has over one hundred posts now. I don’t really feel like debating anymore anytime soon with anyone here on the subject of evolution versus creation. We’ve all pretty much said what we’re going to say and drawn our lines in the sand or whatever.
I for one have an open mind to truth and am willing to admit I am wrong and change my mind if you show me EVIDENCE I am wrong. Also, if your explanation can account for all the existing evidence at least as well as MY explanation does, AND if your explanation is NOT contradicted by existing evidence.
It is my opinion that a literal reading of Genesis has been proven to be FALSE way beyond a reasonable doubt. It is my opinion based on incredibly overwhelming masses of evidence of many types, that humans and chimps share common ancestry about six to eight million years back.
I have YET to see any so-called “creationist” explanation that can account for this evidence. Creationism has a bunch of idiots and liars spreading lies, distortions and misinformation about this subject, and that is why I am so fired up about this.
YOU should be too, Kay, that LIES are being spread in the name of Christ. Do you think Christ likes that?
Oops I just challenged Kay to debate more on this subject in this thread! No don’t answer, Kay, or even if you do, what I said above is what I have already repeated a hundred times in this thread alone and what you’d probably say in reply is what you’ve already said a hundred times in this thread alone so let’s give it a break, for a while, maybe.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
dang it…had two comments in moderation and wrote what was meant to be a short post announcing that but it went long on me (I ramble sometimes especially when tired).
Now I have THREE comments in moderation.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
For me, listening to and playing the song Help! is a form of Nada yoga. The lyrics are like a prayer to one’s higher power. It is significant that one is NOT asking for a free ride. Instead, one is asking to “help me get my feet back on the ground.” This reminds me of that Christian poem “Footprints in the sand” where when you only see one set of footprints is not that you’ve been abandoned but instead is when God is carrying you.
Sometimes I sing it “Help me get my feet back on the ground (I’m on a bike!)”
Also, some may think it more than a bit odd that I practice this one song so much. Here is an explanation of why:
I am training my fingers to automatically go to the right place on the guitar neck to match the sounds my ear hears. Ideally then, once there is perfect correspondence (remember, I said this is an ideal), when I hear sounds in my head for my own songs my fingers will then automatically go to the right place on the guitar neck to produce those sounds.
For this technique to work, I can’t practice to my own songs even though normally those are all I listen to and play. I need a published song with many different levels of music in it, many different frequencies, rhythms, melodies, etc. so my ears hear a variety of sounds for my fingers to find on the guitar neck. It could be somebody’s rendition of “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” that one uses to do this. I just picked “Help!” because darn it, I like that song!
I was doing this long before I figured out why. In other words, I was practicing this technique of training my fingers to match sounds long before I realized that was what I was doing. I can’t claim it to be an original idea so far as I know though. It seems like an obvious way to do things, but again, maybe I *am* bizarre and what seems obvious to me is not so for many or even most other people.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh and Kay, apology accepted. Please accept my apologies for the names I call you sometimes…It isn’t you personally I am attacking. As I see it, I am fighting for truth, and the creationist position has dishonored and discredited itself by being well-known for distortions of truth and out and out lies.
I have no probs with the idea of creationism per se. My only problem is with well-meaning but misinformed people trying to put it into public school science classrooms where it does NOT belong for several reasons I have shared with you many times before, including at least once in an earlier post to this very thread!
Creationism DOES belong in public schools, yes, but NOT in science classrooms. THAT is what needs to be made clear. When people understand what science is and what it is NOT, then they understand WHY creationism has NO PLACE in a science classroom. Comparative mythology classes, psychology classes, sociology classes: these are the appropriate places to discuss creationism.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
oh gosh, you did that whhile you were bicycling? wow.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Yes Princess, I play and sing like that while bicycling. However, what you hear in the mp3 was recorded when I was sitting on my bed with the guitar and then the microphone plugged directly into my notebook computer (that is dying).
There is a video on YouTube of me riding and playing with a battery-powered amplifier on the rack over the rear wheel of the bicycle, and THAT song WAS recorded while I was actually on the bicycle.
I could perform a public concert while on the bicycle, say if I had a wireless setup to broadcast my guitar signals and a wireless microphone headset going to an amplifier and speaker set up somewhere while I ride around in circles or figure eights nearby.
I can turn around easily in the width of a typical residential street. I can also ride on dirt or grass. Gravel is a bit trickier but I’ve done it. Sand, mud, or ice are out though.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh and Kay, it isn’t just you I disagree with. I have not said so yet, but many of E_E’s ideas and claims seem out there to me and some of them I believe are wrong or at least not supported as well as he claims.
So don’t put E_E and me as being on the same team, o Kay? Of course there are some things E_E and I agree on, just as there are some things you and I agree on (I’m pretty sure we could find SOMETHING we agree on, maybe lol).
I don’t feel right now like challenging E_E on the things I disagree with, and besides, unlike OUR debate Kay, the things I disagree about with him do not impact the education of children in public school science classrooms. When it comes to hurting children, which is what the creationists end up doing by their efforts even if they don’t realize it, I take action. Other than that, I really don’t care what anyone chooses to believe as long as they don’t hurt anyone else. I even don’t mind if they want to hurt themselves (some of the Mexican and Filipino variants of Christianity have a lot of that), lying on beds of nails, sleeping on lice infested mattresses to “feed the bugs”, whatever floats your boat. Just don’t spread LIES and try to dumb down children, that’s all I’m asking.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have two comments awaiting moderation
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i admire a man that lives his dreams.
LikeLike
dorian said
i feel that some of e_e’s ideas are rooted in esoteric and initiatic teachings; perhaps he can’t elaborate on some of his sources because that would involve having to write an entire discourse that would involve revealing knowledge taught only in esoteric schools. e_e is probably druid, golden dawn magician, rosicrucian, freemason, satanist, or all of the above and then some!!
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Ok.. well I guess this debate is coming to a close.. I will just end by saying that you are right that I do not understand where you are coming from sometimes.. especially when you say things like the future defines history or something like that and we are all gods or whatever budhist (anti Christian) stuff you are promoting… when I said that I pride myself on being able to see things from another’s point of view, I was refering to the “walking in their shoes” kind of thing… certainly not the understanding of everyone else’s philosophies.. I don’t think anyone can claim that. That was twisting on your part. Your most recent posts have focused heavily on my lack of ability to understand your points… and not much (nothing) was addressed to my actual points to you… like this one in particular…
TBG said: “Oh wait, the last bit…that it is ILLOGICAL for us to exist…uh huh. I see…Forget I asked anything about your sanity. One can’t reason with somebody for whom reasoning and facts don’t count as much as faith in an interpretation that is NOT supported by evidence.”
What reasoning and facts do you have that our existence is logical??? Show me one experiment where you can get something from NOTHING.
And that you are insisting that creationism should be taught in Mythology class I think reveals your true position.. that you do not believe in the God of the Bible.
To be pushing so heavily for evolution OVER Creationism (God) does imply that you do not believe that a Supreme Being exists and that He is capable of anything… EVEN making humans an exception to the evolution process. He created the Heavens and the Earth… but He can’t make exceptions to His creation? Either you believe it is a possibility or you don’t.. meaning you are an atheist. Aparently God (according to you) can’t do anything that argues against science…like for example… produce existence itself which IS.. but which IS illogical. As I said earlier… you cannot argue that one.
I know you are going to say that I’m putting words in your mouth here.. like you have so many times previously… but interestingly.. you don’t explain where I was “wrong.”
And if evolution is an opposing view to God (which it is to most of the scientific community and you also I believe)… then yes, Creationism should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative SCIENTIFIC view (equal time SHOULD be allowed). It’s just a kind of science that we do not understand yet… but that doesn’t mean it is not scientific.
And again I will gladly point out the fact that our existence (the birth of our existence.. pretty significant I would say btw) is NOT scientific. So Creationism (the only alternative we have) SHOULD be included in the science classrooms… I’m fighting for God here and I believe you are fighting against God. Let children decide if it is “mythology” or not.
Atheists want to keep God out of the classrooms so just as soon as you all can prove that science can explain EVERYTHING particularly something as immensely significant as our source of existence… THEN you can argue to keep God out of the classrooms.. until then keep your biased (anti-God) noses out of it and let people decide for themselves.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a “cranky” comment in moderation… I’m sorry to be so cranky… I guess I’m not entirely finished with this debate..although I completely understand if you are…
LikeLike
dorian said
me too, P, i admire TBG for what he does. me, i just live in my dreams.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
And I don’t want lies spread either… I don’t completely disagree with you about tactics that are possibly being used by the “fundies” that you have described… but I do believe that many are just points that you don’t agree with but are very valid.
I WANT scientific findings and discoveries in the classrooms… but I don’t want speculation pushed as fact that’s all I’m saying. Show how the conclusions (opinions) were reached but don’t call them facts. I don’t see why that should be a problem. And also show alternative conclusions and how they were reached.. like believing in a Supreme Being because our very existence is not scientific (the birth of our existence).. I hate that I have to keep clarifying that but EE (and you sometimes) often convieniently forget this IMPORTANT point and think I’m talking about the process which would of coure would make my statement ignorant.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have another comment in moderation…
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
ah, I see you are no longer interested in discussing evolution vs. creation, TBG, so I shall move on. At any rate, you said you weren’t prepared to discuss your own ideas on the issue, so that would have turned into a rather tedious and pointless discussion.
Hey, I listened to your song. Great guitar playing. The vocals could have been louder, more confident, but maybe it was just the acoustics?
I may pop in a time or two more in case you have resurrected the debate, but if not, be well ….
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
TBG I look forward to a discussion with you about the electrical impulses that run and fuel our body, quite literally energy. And your thoughts on this. Maybe we will be able to learn from one another.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
@Kay I am not an atheist but I want to keep God out of the classrooms. If I wanted my children to learn about God in the classroom, I would send them to a private christian school. In a public school, God has no place to be taught by teachers. Just like sex has no place in a school. It is the parents job to teach their kids these things. Science can explain just about everything but the unexplainable. For the unexplainable we have philosophy. That’s how it is, we are trying to give our kids the tools to succeed in life. You cannot succeed anymore with a High School Diploma, I mean to support a family in today’s age you have to goto college, or some kind of vocational school. Unless you want a career in the food service industry, or at a grocery store. (It made my father miserable at times, it is not something I truly want to experience as he has.) Higher education is needed. Also public schools are state run, meaning that the Federal Government pays for it. So if we put God in the classroom, it goes against the Constitution. It will never change, God will never be apart of formal education in America. That doesn’t mean religious youth organizations cannot have like clubs or after school meetings. But a teacher paid by the government cannot officially teach children about religion. If you don’t like that fact, then send your children to a private school. I don’t care if you say I am against God or an “atheist” because of this. You are arguing for something that will never happen, especially not in my lifetime. Why you may ask? Let me give you a history lesson. The pilgrims who came to the British colonies that became the USA, where criminals. My ancestor was sent here because of “improper relations outside his status.” Which means he fell in love with someone Rich, and more than likely had sex with her. It was a criminal act in that time, so was not being the same religion as the King. The pilgrims came over here because they refused to convert. This country was founded on the government not telling you what religion you should belong to. Or how to worship God. It would be against the constitution, and it would be against what this country was founded on. So no state paid teacher will ever teach about God during school hours. Blame it on the atheists if you want. There is nothing stopping anyone to send a child to private school. Of course it is religion run and you will have to pay a lot of money. Not because it is religion run, but because they can’t actually pay the teachers and feed your kids without it. Public schools have tax payer money paying for it.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i kind of have to agree with that theory,
i think it’s all vibrational,
just atoms vibrating at different frequencies.
good vibrations?
not always.
that HAARP project comes to mind.
amd i’m certain everything is super-bi-dimensional.
therefore it’s of no consequence whatsoever.
it’s just up to me now to gay it all up.
i’ll write a poem then dorian will be compelled to write a poem and it’s gay sex orgies for everybody under the christmas tree. here goes.
berlusconi the red-nosed prime minister,
had a very broken nose,
and if you ever saw it,
you would even say, “it’s fractured”.
all of the other prime ministers,
used to laugh and call him names,
that’s because berlusconi,
banged so many smokin’ dames.
then one boozy chanakka nite
sylvio got smashed in the face,
now dorian go and write a poem
and fag the human race…
LikeLike
dorian said
sylvio, he had it coming.
‘had everybody on bended knees
and i don’t mean praying.
i’d like another fiat, please.
princess of the ten inch nails
told me to fag the human race.
with all the berlusconi money,
may i just bi the human race??
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(then one faggy christmas eve…)
we all have to don
our gayest apparel
boys will be girls
and girls will be boys
santa will find us all
‘neath the christmas tree
in drunken bliss
this christmas eve
so chaka chaka khan
and jinga bella mamma
sez pikachu pacabra
whooz gonna be the next great rappah?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Well Kay, you are delusional at least regarding this subject.
You don’t object to children being taught that the earth goes around the sun instead of vice versa as the Bible clearly teaches, do you? If you don’t, then you’re not being consistent here. There is at least as much evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor as there is that the earth goes around the sun. It really is that obvious, not a matter of interpretation but an observed fact of nature.
So you choose to ignore what is real in order to cling to an INTERPRETATION of the book of Genesis that has been proven to be false according to the evidence of the world God created, and to invent incredible contortions of logic such as imaginary earlier planets and such to try to rationalize your view.
There’s a big difference here. Children should be taught the fact of evolution BECAUSE of the evidence. You believe in your “theory” (although your version isn’t even correctly termed a theory, much less a fact), anyway, you believe in your fantasy IN SPITE OF the evidence, not because of it.
Oh and I think I figured out why you kept calling me an atheist when I clearly am not and have never described myself as such. Apparently, help me out here, an atheist according to your definition is anyone who isn’t a fundamentalist Christian, in other words, anyone who doesn’t believe in the same God the same way as you do. That seems to be why you use the “A” word so much when it clearly doesn’t apply. News flash though Kay, for the rest of the world, atheist has a definition found in dictionaries that everybody but you agrees on. If you’re going to make up new definitions for what words mean, it is very confusing for anyone talking with you to have any idea of what you’re saying.
Just a couple thoughts. I really do NOT want to debate with you on this topic anymore Kay, not because I have “lost” but because you have indicated you have a closed mind to truth, that you have your mind made up that things are the way YOU say they are even if all the evidence of the world indicates otherwise.
Also, the last few posts have NOT introduced any new arguments, facts or ideas to this discussion. You are repeating the same bullshit you spewed before, bullshit that is clearly wrong and easily proven to be wrong. Thank God there are enough people out there who ARE open to God’s truth that our children have at least a small chance of getting a decent science education.
There have been moments in months past when it seemed you MIGHT still have enough reasoning ability to admit that MAYBE humans did evolve. I was actually shocked that you said perhaps evolution happens for all other animals except humans, although that doesn’t make sense when the fossil record clearly shows us evolving from apes. But then you started invoking this imaginary earlier planet idea to try to explain how the evidence of the world makes it LOOK like a literal reading of Genesis is false.
Doesn’t that seem just a little bit crazy to you, to have to resort to such incredible contortions of logic and distortions of facts to justify your beliefs? At least I think you and I have a better understanding of each other’s beliefs than we did when we started two or three months ago. That’s a good thing, I think.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG.. when you accuse others of not understanding your point of view..don’t you at least, in the spirit of trying to not be hypocritical, check to see if you are understanding my point of view? I don’t think that you do and the reason is because you have attributed to me (again) the belief that the earth is a recycled planet… which is an idea that I presented but I’ve said several times that I don’t necessarily subscribe to that view… that I DON’T KNOW what to believe. yet if you refer back to your previous comment, you will see where you have attached these beliefs to me..and then to make it worse, you follow with insults… you think you are the only one who gets frustrated?? You are not.
I have never even said that I subscribe to the view that the earth is 6000 years old.. you will see where I’ve said that even in this thread I believe. I did say that I was “leaning” towards this view recently but that is not the same as “clinging” to a belief as you put it. Again, I do not know for sure what to believe.
And once again, you have ignored a question / point that I’ve presented…
Why don’t you just argue my points INSTEAD of rambling about how inept I am?? That is the idea here. (If you just want to throw insults please go back to that talk orgins site.. no doubt that’s where you picked up your “delightful” tactfulness. I don’t know why people waste their time trading “clever” insults back and forth all day long.. what fun.)
If you cannot show me how science can explain our existence (the birth of our existence) then you are completely and totaly wrong to insist (and arrogantly hurl insults) that we accept science and ONLY science as the explanation to our existence. You are in no position to say that Genesis is false. No matter what the scientific findings imply. The impossible has already been done! We are here. You and scientists do not have the authority to decree that the impossible can’t be done or hasn’t been done. The impossible happens all the time.
Now, do you (still) have a problem with pointing out IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM the FACT that science CANNOT explain the birth of our existence?? THAT is the question that you don’t seem to want to address.
We were at the point where you and EE were going to prove to me how you can get something from NOTHING… that would then prove that our existence is logical as you insist ( and desparately need to believe), as opposed to illogical.. which is my contention. And if our existence cannot be scientifically proven to be logical then that point SHOULD be addressed in the SCIENCE classroom. And therefore… God should also be addressed in the science classroom..I’m not talking about Bible study… I’m talking about addressing the OTHER possibility.. a Supreme Being… this most certainly SHOULD be presented in the science classroom.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Look, I *have* addressed your points.
Specificially, just because science cannot (yet, and maybe never will) explain ultimate causes does not mean that it cannot explain what is here, now, including evidence of past processes such as gravity and evolution that still exist.
AND, since ultimate causes are outside the realm of science, supernatural explanations invoking deities of whichever religion do NOT belong in SCIENCE classrooms because that AIN’T science.
Because those explanations are NOT scientific ones, that is why they do NOT belong in SCIENCE classrooms. Do you understand that yet? Teach those things in the appropriate venue. What, you don’t like Christianity being lumped in with other faiths in a mythology course? Tough. Christianity IS a myth.
I think you might be thinking of the vernacular use where myth commonly means something that is untrue. This is similar to the problem some people have with the use of the word theory to explain the fact of evolution. The vernacular use of the word theory is much different than the scientific use.
Sure, a science teacher can tell the students that not everybody accepts the evidence of the physical world, and a science teacher can also correctly tell students that the fact of evolution neither proves nor disproves God.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, I challenge you to continue your debate with me, even if you seem to want to wrap it up with Kay. You seem to be very confident of your position, and Kay, bless her heart, has taken a much humbler approach. I see no reason why you should stalk off the platform in triumph when you have not even defended your position, except with insults and general appeals to authority.
Science describes laws of nature and uses these laws to predict and to experiment. So, if you dare, answer this question:
What is the law of evolution that leads to new species? I’m referring to macroevolution, the theory, and not microevolution, the fact. Macroevolution claims that that populations evolve as a result of random, rare beneficial mutations, selected for. Random activity is not a law. So what scientific law is there that can be appealed to as the cause of macroevolution?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay says “Now, do you (still) have a problem with pointing out IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM the FACT that science CANNOT explain the birth of our existence?? THAT is the question that you don’t seem to want to address.”
A good science teacher should explain to the students what science is and how it works, including what it can and cannot do. I have absolutely no problem with a teacher telling kids that science cannot yet and maybe never will be able to explain how the universe started or how life began (althouh they are getting closer and closer to explaining abiogenesis, life from nonlife, how elements combined in certain ways to form living systems).
So okay, so that takes what, thirty seconds, maybe five or ten minutes if there’s some discussion about it. Good. Done. Now on to the subjects science CAN address, including the FACT of evolution.
*************************************************
Kay also says: “We were at the point where you and EE were going to prove to me how you can get something from NOTHING…”
When have I ever said that, Kay? I’ll save you the trouble: I haven’t said that. Let me make it clear. YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH (AGAIN) THAT SAY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I ACTUALLY SAY. I also explained to you (and you still don’t get it, sheesh) that I don’t agree with everything E_E says.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Funny though, that you say the impossible happens all the time, yet are willing to accept things that DO happen such as evolution. Sheesh…
Hey, getting something from nothing is commonly accepted as impossible, but according to you the impossible is possible so what’s your problem even if I *did* say that (but I didn’t, just want to make that clear, again, since you put those words into my mouth that are opposite to what I say, again).
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Okay, now that I have addressed your points (again) that you mistakenly claimed I was avoiding, are we done yet? It’s obvious your mind is closed to truth, that you are willing to deny reality at all costs. Thank God not everyone is like you. Thank God for you too, Kay, because people need other people who believe differently, no matter how crazy the beliefs, in order to understand their own beliefs.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Synapse! You’re back! YAY!
and thank you for the compliments about my song. Yeah the vocals aren’t as strong as the guitar playing, but then I am “The Bicycling Guitarist,” not “The Bicycling Singer.”
Okay, here’s your question:
What is the law of evolution that leads to new species? I’m referring to macroevolution, the theory, and not microevolution, the fact. Macroevolution claims that that populations evolve as a result of random, rare beneficial mutations, selected for. Random activity is not a law. So what scientific law is there that can be appealed to as the cause of macroevolution?
here’s my answer:
New species arise by changes over time in the relative frequencies of allelles being expressed in a population due to environmental pressures. In sexual reproduction there is some shuffling of the genes that varies which DNA goes to the offspring. Random activity is not a law, but mutations do happen sometimes too from viruses, chemical mutagens, radiation, and genetic drift. If those mutations result in changes to the DNA that confer an advantage to an individual in a particular environment, then that individual’s offspring tend to do better than other individuals competing for the same resources.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
by the way, I was about to close my participation in this thread (and stick to it this time) because Kay hasn’t presented any new arguments I hadn’t already addressed. However, it took me a few more posts to try to explain to her (again) that I already addressed those arguments.
btw, feel free to answer any of the questions I pose to Kay too. I do like the format you follow, sticking to one question at a time and rephrasing it if necessary until both parties are satisfied that their relative viewpoints are clear to the other.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
also, I have two comments in moderation that were both posted BEFORE I saw the reappearance of Synapseaxion.
LikeLike
Search the Web on Snap.com said
Oh and Synapseaxion, let us both agree (unless you don’t) that when we talk about “laws” of nature what we are talking about are observed regularities of nature, not laws in the ordinary sense of the word.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
um, that was me. I have NO idea how my name changed to “Search the Web on Snap.com”
Did it evolve? was it created? lol
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The reason I am confident of my position, Synapseaxion, is that I have studied this subject intensely for at least forty years. I may be aware of more evidence than many members of the general public, especially if they are relying on fundie preachers or creationist web sites as their primary source of information.
Now the preachers aren’t that bad. Most of them mean well, and if they really knew what evidence exists they might not preach the same sermons they do regarding evolution, maybe.
The creationist web sites though really irk me, not because I am opposed to dissenting views (I’m not) but because of the way they frequently distort the truth, quote scientists out of context to imply the OPPOSITE of what the scientists actually say, and their basic misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what science is and how it works.
Accepting evolution does not necessarily mean rejecting God, unless you say it does, in which case it most certainly does FOR YOU but not necessarily for anyone else.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, I agree with you that when we talk about “laws” of nature that we are talking about observed regularities of nature, not moral or legal laws.
But back to the line of thought. I had asked:
What is the law of evolution that leads to new species? I’m referring to macroevolution, the theory, and not microevolution, the fact. Macroevolution claims that populations evolve as a result of random, rare beneficial mutations, selected for. Random activity is not a law. So what scientific law is there that can be appealed to as the cause of macroevolution?
Your answer:
New species arise by changes over time in the relative frequencies of allelles being expressed in a population due to environmental pressures. In sexual reproduction there is some shuffling of the genes that varies which DNA goes to the offspring. Random activity is not a law, but mutations do happen sometimes too from viruses, chemical mutagens, radiation, and genetic drift. If those mutations result in changes to the DNA that confer an advantage to an individual in a particular environment, then that individual’s offspring tend to do better than other individuals competing for the same resources.
Thanks for an educated answer. True, it does not describe any law, but it describes the evolutionary point of view nicely. Based on your answer so far, it is safe to say that there are no laws by which macroevolution is suppposed to occur.
So, the next question is: If the concept of macroevolution is not based on any law of nature, does that take the theory of macroevolution out of the field of hard science and into the field of speculation?
Hopefully, your answer will guide as to whether this is a discussion about science or a discussion about educated (or not) opinions.
(By the way, how do you go about bolding a question so it is easier to spot? The control-B on my keyboard does not bold text in this venue. And I’m definitely not into programming or coding. How did you do it?)
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
two earlier comments are still awaiting moderation. since there have been several posts since then, they might be overlooked once approved. Kay, I do answer (again) those specific points you put to me, as I have before.
From now on though, if you do pose the same points again with nothing new, my answer to you will be that I already answered them.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hold it right there, Synapseaxion…you’re trying to pull a fast one again.
As with our initial exchange, you take an answer of mine, then make an assumption and claim that my answer means I go along with your assumption. Nope.
You said “Based on your answer so far, it is safe to say that there are no laws by which macroevolution is suppposed to occur.”
WRONG!
Since evolution occurs in the natural world, then all the other so-called “laws” of nature apply to it. In other words, macroevolution occurs by all the “laws” of nature, not separate from or in contradiction to them.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Synapseaxion asks: So, the next question is: If the concept of macroevolution is not based on any law of nature, does that take the theory of macroevolution out of the field of hard science and into the field of speculation?
My answer:
evolution occurs in the natural world, then all the other so-called “laws” of nature apply to it. In other words, macroevolution occurs by all the “laws” of nature, not separate from or in contradiction to them.
What I do is use those pointy brackets, the ones that look like less than and greater than signs, to enclose the word “strong” at the beginning of what I want bolded and the same but with a forward slash before it at the end. In other words, but without the spaces because I had to include the spaces for them to show up in this text box… blah blah blah
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
dang even WITH the spaces the pointy brackets didn’t show up…
hmmm… lemme try a fancy coding trick. this is a test.
<strong> and </strong>
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Yay it worked!
In the text box put <strong> in front of the text you want bolded, and </strong> after it. Then the text will be rendered bold, or actually “strong”. The reason I use strong instead of bold is that for visually-impaired people using screen readers, the “bold” tag is rendered visually but the screen reader doesn’t render it any differently when reading it aloud, while the “strong” tag IS rendered differently. I learned this while making my own web site more accessible to people with disabilities.
For similar reasons, use “em” instead of “i” to render italicized text. I hope this helps!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
now there are THREE comments awaiting moderation, the earlier two addressed to Kay plus one for Synapseaxion. Btw, the comment of mine just prior to this went through and was posted immediately, but the third one being held was written BEFORE that one and this one.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I’m not sure of the order in which things show up, if earlier comments being held for moderation show up in the spot where they were posted or show up later in the thread after being approved…
If the former case is true, then Kay please go back and read those two being held for you, and SynapseAxion please the one for you once it appears.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hey E_E, can SynapseAxion and I have a NEW thread started in which to debate this topic? The reason I ask is that this thread is fast approaching the two hundred post mark, which makes it difficult to scroll through. Also, I indicated in my messages to Kay, until or unless she comes up with new material she and I have nothing to discuss. I have addressed the points she thought I was ignoring. She has NOT answered all my questions, especially not the ONE question I asked her FOUR TIMES. SynapseAxion did though. So I think SynapseAxion and I deserve a new thread!
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
testing
hmmm, the word “testing” does not bold. What am I doing wrong, TBG?
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
oh, wait. It did bold. How nice! 😀 It did not show up as bold before posting, but did show as bold once posted. Thanks for the tip, TBG. And I think it is very thoughtful of you to consider the disabled and impaired.
LikeLike
dorian said
well, you two? i was enjoying the debate. taking a break and having a beer somewhere, eh? keep at it! (whip cracking) are you going to wait until i write another poem? don’t tempt me!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Well gosh Dorian, I hope the beer you are enjoying is Rolling Rock!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh were WE the ones taking a break? oops.
how about a commercial break? Picture if you will the following exchange. The place, a television studio. The time, sometime in the immediate future.
Me: “The Bicycling Guitarist for Rolling Rock beer:
It goes down smooth, like a presidential intern.”
Director: “CUT! We can’t use that!”
Me: “Oh, I’m sorry, let me try again. Hey, let me have another one to freshen my tongue.” (director motions and one of his assistants hands TBG another Rolling Rock beer).
“Okay, I’m ready.”
Director: “and…ACTION!”
Me: “Hi, I’m The Bicycling Guitarist, and I drink Rolling Rock beer. Why, because it ROCKS!’
(someone with more time than I have right now could extend this skit quite humorously, especially if they have me make more inappropriate comments and becoming more drunk as they give me fresh beers between every take.)
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
glad I could help SynapseAxion, oh and the bold tag is <b> and not <bold> as my I might have unintentionally implied in my earlier comment, but <b> has been deprecated for some time now in HTML standards which suggest <strong> as its replacement, just as <em> is suggested to replace <i>
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
What the hey, let me have another go at one of your questions that I’ve already answered, for the heck of it.
Kay says: “And if our existence cannot be scientifically proven to be logical then that point SHOULD be addressed in the SCIENCE classroom. And therefore… God should also be addressed in the science classroom..I’m not talking about Bible study… I’m talking about addressing the OTHER possibility.. a Supreme Being… this most certainly SHOULD be presented in the science classroom.”
Look Kay, you are trying to redefine science to include supernatural explanations. If supernatural beings and imaginary earlier planets are invoked that cannot be observed or measured, IT AIN’T SCIENCE and most certainly do NOT belong in science classrooms.
A good science teacher will not present the findings of science in a way that claims absolute truth or excludes the possiblity of a Supreme Being or Creator, but that disclaimer only takes a couple minutes at the beginning of the semester. To give equal time, or any significant amount of time at all, in a SCIENCE classroom to supernatural causes that are outside the realm of science is wrong, just plain wrong.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
How about this Kay. You collect some “God” and get us some data. THEN we can discuss “God” scientifically, okay? See if you can cram God into a test tube, weigh and measure Him, etc.
Now I believe God IS in that test tube, that God IS everywhere, immanent and transcendent, but God is too big to grasp. I think actually you and I may agree somewhat on this. Where we differ is on how much you and I think humans are capable of understanding some details of God’s creation. I say that there is enough evidence and we have enough brain to at least try to describe it and make predictions. You apparently have no trouble with science describing things such as the orbits of the planets and such, or maybe even the evolution of animals, but draw the line at human origins. I say that smacks of pride and ignorance.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG quotes me…”Kay also says: “We were at the point where you and EE were going to prove to me how you can get something from NOTHING…”
And says..”When have I ever said that, Kay? I’ll save you the trouble: I haven’t said that.”
Let me clear up your confusion… you said that our existence is logical.. and your reasoning is that it is because we are here.
I presented to you this argument… that if you can show me how to get something from NOTHING then I will agree with you that our existence is logical. That is where it was left… either you show me how we can get something from NOTHING or you admit that my statement is correct.. that our existence is not logical. It’s pretty simple. But you seem to have “forgotten” about this argument / request. I love it when people claim “honesty” and then do stuff like this.
And ps…
you said…”(althouh they are getting closer and closer to explaining abiogenesis, life from nonlife, how elements combined in certain ways to form living systems).”
This does not even come close to proving how the begining of existence came to be. It’s just further excuses and desparate research to avoid acknowledging the obvious by non believers.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
you said: “Specificially, just because science cannot (yet, and maybe never will) explain ultimate causes does not mean that it cannot explain what is here, now, including evidence of past processes such as gravity and evolution that still exist.”
where did I say that science cannot explain what is here now??? This point that you keep bringing up is pointless to our argument.
You said: “AND, since ultimate causes are outside the realm of science, supernatural explanations invoking deities of whichever religion do NOT belong in SCIENCE classrooms because that AIN’T science.”
1st, I never said to invoke “dieties”… I said to present the concept of a Supreme Being (Creationism). Because of the very fact that science cannot prove the ultimate source. Leaving out things that cannot be proven scientifically is very convienient for atheists like you isn’t it? But once again, I need to remind you that our existence is real…and our ultimate source CANNOT be scientifically proven… so to leave that part out just because it cannot be proven scientifically is not fair to children. It just furthers your agenda to exclude God.
At least you acknowledged that this point should be acknowledged in classrooms, that science cannot prove our ultimate source of existence. But you convieniently want to stop there and that is not fair.. the other possibility (and there is only one other possibility) should be presented. The word Nazi has been coming to mind lately… What is your problem with acknowledging the possibility of a Supreme Being??? SINCE we do not have the ultimate answers?
And to use the excuse that it is not scientific is BS because the cause of our existence IS NOT SCIENTIFIC… and we can’t be ignored… we are here. But you and all atheist DO want to ignore this fact. It’s ignorance of the ULTIMATE kind.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “Thank God not everyone is like you.”
You mean people who have an open mind towards God? Thank God not everyone is like you… and btw.. who exactly are you thanking??? I contend that you are very confused.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation… #190?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
How about this Kay. You collect some “God” and get us some data. THEN we can discuss “God” scientifically, okay? See if you can cram God into a test tube, weigh and measure Him, etc.
Now, is this your response to my point that our existence isn’t logical? Still waiting for you to properly address this point.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Let me put it this way…. you don’t get to discount and exclude things just because they cannot be explained scientifically… ESPECIALLY when it pertains to our existence!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay says “either you show me how we can get something from NOTHING or you admit that my statement is correct.. that our existence is not logical. ”
Nope, you have presented an example of a false dichotomy, presenting two options as if those are the ONLY two possibilities.
Consider this, what if the universe has always existed and goes through cycles of birth, life, death, and rebirth? In such a case, something has always existed so for something to come from it is NOT a case of something coming from nothing but is instead something coming from something.
Another possibility is that GOD (insert Deity of your choice here) started the universe from scratch, that this manifestation of the universe IS the first and only one. However, are you saying that GOD (insert Deity of choice here) is nothing?
Still another possibility is similar to that last one, GOD (your choice of Deity) created this first and only universe. Now once created, once started, the energy dances around making pretty patterns (I bet God can blow awesome smoke rings), the atoms wiggle and jiggle and combine in ways God knew they would, and about thirteen billion years later those atoms have gone through chemical and physical combinations that result in humans living on planet Earth. Again, this is not something coming from nothing.
Still ANOTHER possiblity is that this universe isn’t something MADE by God, it IS God, and everything and everyone is a manifestation of God. In this case the Creation is not something separate from the Creator. This is not the standard Christian view, which uses what Alan Watts calls a “ceramic model” of the universe.. Is this something from nothing? I think not.
One thing I most definitely DO agree with E_E about is that your logic is faulty and twisted Kay. Since we ARE here, it is illogical for you to say that our existence is illogical. That just doesn’t make sense.
Also, you do contradict yourself. Another example:
“1st, I never said to invoke “dieties”… I said to present the concept of a Supreme Being (Creationism).”
I will rephrase this so the contradiction is clear. “I never said to present the concept of a Supreme Being. I said to present the concept of a Supreme Being.”
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Godwin’s Law
To quote from that Wikipedia article, “By 2007, The Economist had declared that “a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument.”[14]”
Oh and Kay, you said Nazi first, so I WIN! YAY!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Yeah Dorian, this is fun to watch I bet. You perv!
Kay says: “TBG said: “Thank God not everyone is like you.”
You mean people who have an open mind towards God? Thank God not everyone is like you… and btw.. who exactly are you thanking??? I contend that you are very confused.”
NOKAY, I mean people who have an open mind towards truth, including the fact of evolution. If you believe in God, to deny the truths revealed in His creation is to deny Him. And btw, I am thanking the same God you believe in. I obviously do NOT believe the exact same way you do.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Alright, just one more from this current salvo from my battleship, then Kay or Synapse or whoever gets to shoot back at me.
Kay says: “Let me put it this way…. you don’t get to discount and exclude things just because they cannot be explained scientifically… ESPECIALLY when it pertains to our existence”
Excuse me? Things that cannot be explained scientifically are NOT science. If they are NOT science, they do NOT belong in SCIENCE classrooms. That does not mean they should not be taught in public schools, only that they should be taught in the proper classroom and not presented as being scientific when they ain’t.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
three postings were published right away, including the longest. Howeever, the last one (a shortie) is being held for moderation. Is it because of the number of postings within a time period that causes this? Maybe I should have combined the last two…I dunno.
LikeLike
dorian said
i ate a whole tub of popcorn.
and that’s the key difference between TBG and kay. they believe in the same God but not in the same way. so what’s all the fuss about?? oh yeah…kay wants creationism taught in school. well, parochial schools have religion classes. they’re private schools and cost more. i think sunday school, catechism, hebrew school, etc. is where religion classes belong. religious practice is after all an individual choice and must not be imposed on everyone, imo.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Way back in post 106 of this thread in the distant past (Sunday, Dec. 13, 2009) I posted:
I am NOT opposed to creationism being taught in public schools, and I strongly agree that people should have the freedom to believe whatever they want. However, creationism in its fundie form does NOT belong in SCIENCE classrooms because it AIN’T SCIENCE. The evidence does not support it; in fact it falsifies it. It makes no predictions that can be tested. It invokes supernatural causes that cannot be observed, measured or tested. This is why it does NOT belong in science classrooms.
Students can learn about different beliefs in comparative mythology, pyschology, or sociology classrooms. THAT is where the subject of fundie Creationism rightly belongs, along with other creation myths (some of which make a lot more sense and are more in accord with the evidence of the physical world).
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
I’m only at 103 for reading but I’m diving in anyhow. From kay:
“You both convieniently forget that science does NOT explain how our existence came to be… so evolution DOES NOT supply all of the answers.”
It can’t yet, but that doesn’t matter. Science doesn’t have to deliver all the answers today. Or next week, for that matter. Scientists have been plugging away at the issues and mysteries for hundreds of years, and they will continue to do so for hundreds more, probably, unless we all blow each other up or some disease beats every attempt to eradicating it, or plants evolve into ambulatory predators and kill us all a la The Triffids…
“And when that is the case other views SHOULD be presented… and the other view is a Supreme Being. And the Bible is the only true source we have that presents this OTHER view.”
It may be the “other” source, but it’s not a scientific one so bible-inspired biology/science lessons can’t be had out of it, unless we ignore most of what those hundreds of years worth of scientists have figured out already.
“Saying there is no evidence of the Genesis account is YOUR opinion… remove your ignorance blinders and you will see plenty of evidence all around you.”
But there is no evidence beyond that book save what other people have written based on that book and what they’ve taken from it. If Genesis (both stories) had been left out of the bible when it was constructed, do you think that it’d be easier to accept evolution?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Dorian said: “i ate a whole tub of popcorn.”
Was that tub of popcorn on your lap, and was there a hole in the bottom of it? Did you offer some popcorn to the person sitting next to you in the theater?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh I see a couple more Kayisms in 1minions post
1minion says Kay says: “And the Bible is the only true source we have that presents this OTHER view”
The only true source…in your OPINION. There are billions of people who disagree with you, and that’s not even counting atheists. btw, I still have the impression that your definition of atheist is everyone who isn’t a fundie Christian. Is this what you think?
********************************************
Sorry I’m not taking the time to hunt down the originals of these Kay quotations. I’m trusting 1minion cut and paste properly, and these DO sound like things Kay would say.
1 minion also says Kay says: “Saying there is no evidence of the Genesis account is YOUR opinion… remove your ignorance blinders and you will see plenty of evidence all around you.”
NoKay, it isn’t just my opinion or 1minion’s opinion (hey that sounds cool, 1minion’s opinion…there’s a rhyme for your next poem, princess or dorian!) that there is no evidence of the Genesis account. It is a proven FACT.
There have been about a dozen major court cases in the United States where the teaching of evolution in public schools has been challenged by well-meaning but misinformed Creationists.
When asked to present hard evidence, physical proof that supports THEIR position, the Creationists have been unable to do so, every time. I’m not making this up. That is why this argument is so ridiculous. I will repeat that question I kept asking you, now for the FIFTH time, to illustrate what the true situation is in this matter. Maybe you’ll answer it this time, but I’m not holding my breath:
So, on one hand you have tons of evidence all pointing to the same reality, and honesty and integrity as far as reporting that evidence goes. On the other side you have NO evidence at all supporting their position, and much deception, lies and lack of integrity in their discussion.
Without knowing that the above paragraph refers to the subject of evolution versus creation, which side would you tend to go with, LOGICALLY?
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
157 now – I’m getting there. This from E_E:
“In a public school, God has no place to be taught by teachers.”
I agree, and have said so on my own blog in more than a few places. Values can be taught without bringing a deity into it. Same for every course ever taught under a school house roof. (Unless it’s a religion course, obviously – but those shouldn’t be in public schools until an age where kids can study religions objectively like they can geography or something).
“Just like sex has no place in a school. It is the parents job to teach their kids these things.”
Do you mean how to have sex with condom demonstrations and dolls in position, or do you mean teaching them about sexuality and puberty and what body parts change and why? I think that’s vital to get at school because parents aren’t always comfortable talking about that stuff, even in this day and age. Personally, I think sex-ed is such an important part of health. It’s as important as nutrition, something else kids aren’t learning much about at home or school from the look of things.
“Science can explain just about everything but the unexplainable. For the unexplainable we have philosophy.”
We also have the pseudosciences. I thumbed through a book called “Forbidden History” last year for a series of blog posts and some of the crackpot theories in there rival kay’s imagination. I think J. Douglas Kenyon (the editor) has a website with a lot of that stuff on it.
“That’s how it is, we are trying to give our kids the tools to succeed in life.”
We all know science doesn’t have all the answers. Maybe they will in our lifetimes, probably they won’t. But if science classes get eroded by all these attempts to bring ID into them in place of real, factual, historical, empirical, verifiable scientific conclusions, our future will suffer for it.
We need people pushing the envelope. We need people willing to try the impossible. We don’t need more people sitting on a 2000 year old book instead and claiming science is pointless. We don’t need more people claiming that book has everything we need to know about life, the universe and everything when it’s not even remotely close.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay seems to think that the ONLY other view explaining human origins and the diversity of life is the fundie interpretation of the Bible. There are MANY creation myths throughout the world. In a public school, one cannot favor any one religion over any other. There are many more creation myths from other cultures that have changed so that these myths are no longer followed (at least not by whole societies anymore). An example would be classical Greek or Egyptian mythology.
NoKay, there is more than one other view, and even using the Bible as the Christian example of this view, more than one way to interpret that. MOST Christian denominations accept the fact of evolution because of the overwhelming amount of physical evidence that indicates it happens. This is very similar to the situation of a few centuries ago when the official position of Christian authorities was that the Bible teaches the sun goes around the earth so it must be so, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Eventually Christians realized how stupid and how wrong that was, and today so far as I know most Christians accept that the earth goes around the sun. Which do you believe Kay, and why? If you say that you accept the fact the earth goes around the sun, then why oh why are you so in denial of the fact of evolution? To quote from my 1991 song Evolution: Could it be you’re too proud to admit you’re related to a monkey? Don’t forget pride is one of the seven deadly sins.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
well I haven’t heard back from SynapseAxion yet. And Kay has not presented any new material and apparently still doesn’t understand my replies to her old material. There’s really no point in continuing this discussion. I do think it was worthwhile and that maybe, just maybe, those who participated learned something about what other people think even if they don’t agree with it.
My problems aren’t just with what you believe Kay, it is with how you misrepresent what I say (quite often attributing the OPPOSITE meaning to what I actually said), how you contradict yourself (to paraphrase for clarity: I never said to present the concept of a Supreme Being; I said to present the concept of a Supreme Being), how you redefine words differently than the rest of the world defines those words (atheist, logical, etc.), how you even redefine whole areas of human inquiry such as science to try to make them something they are not, etc. etc. etc.
this is getting tiresome. you can knock over the chess pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to your flock to proclaim victory but that doesn’t mean you really won, Kay. The truth will prevail, eventually, even if the human race becomes extinct evolution happens. Maybe the next species to evolve intelligence will do better.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
More Kay fodder from 161:
“If you cannot show me how science can explain our existence (the birth of our existence) then you are completely and totaly wrong to insist (and arrogantly hurl insults) that we accept science and ONLY science as the explanation to our existence.”
Science isn’t an explanation. It’s an area of study, a huge gigantic area of study broken into so many kinds of fields it’d take more space than we have to list them all.
Endocrinologists don’t give a damn about what jumpstarted the universe. Physicists are probably more curious than virologists about it. Virologists likely care more about evolution since viruses like to mutate and adapt to any attempts to combat them. What a job they must have, eh?
Evolution is only a method to explain how we got here and it just happens to be the best explanation scientists in those particular evolutionary fields have come up with based on available evidence (and there’s a lot of it).
“You are in no position to say that Genesis is false. No matter what the scientific findings imply.”
I think it’s likely it is false. I think scientific findings have adequately demonstrated how young homo sapiens are and also how long it’s been since homo habilis walked the earth. And how much longer it’s been since a brontosaurus has. It doesn’t take a plot worthy of a science fiction writer to build a habitable planet earth (Although Terry Pratchett’s book “Strata” is totally a recommendation from me. Go find it. It’s very well done). It just takes time. Billions of years worth of time. Maybe we can’t count them all on our fingers, but that doesn’t mean those years didn’t happen.
“The impossible has already been done! We are here. You and scientists do not have the authority to decree that the impossible can’t be done or hasn’t been done. The impossible happens all the time.”
Then it’s not impossible, is it? Highly improbable doesn’t equal impossible. You know what’s really impossible? Unbeating an egg or skiing through revolving doors.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
For 205: 103 was the comment i was quoting. Also, my blog is http://1minionsopinion.wordpress.com which I picked because it rhymed. I love rhymes.
Also, a comment in moderation.
LikeLike
dorian said
i feel compelled to link to this everytime i see the seven deadly (or capital) sins mentioned: https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/dorian-and-the-seven-capital-sins/ sez pavlov’s o.c. dog.
LikeLike
dorian said
popcorn, TBG? lots of hot butter. reach in.
i’ve got another poem for you all. it can be be sung to the tune of “yellow submarine”. just missing a last line. maybe one of you can help me. finish “we all live in… ta tata tatata” describing this whole thread.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
“Kay says “either you show me how we can get something from NOTHING or you admit that my statement is correct.. that our existence is not logical. ”
you said: “Nope, you have presented an example of a false dichotomy, presenting two options as if those are the ONLY two possibilities. ”
TBG.. are you aware of the “fact” that the universe is expanding? Or is that one convieniently considered a theory by you? Because if it’s “fact” by your definition then that implies that there was a begining.. and that would make your “always existed” theory flawed.
And this following “explanation” doesn’t apply because you are using something “starting from scratch” (whatever that means.) It’s not a scientificaly logical alternative.
“Another possibility is that GOD (insert Deity of your choice here) started the universe from scratch,”
So that really does leave the two options.. and don’t try and twist and confuse things… we are talking about scientific logic here, that is what my question is based on … and based on the scientific logic that we know of today there must always be a begining especially if the scientific “fact” that the universe is expanding is true.
ALL of the “alternative” theories you gave are not logical according to science.. so nice try but you still haven’t answered my question.
So, again the question is… can you show that our existence is logical.. even if it’s just by theory.. by showing how we can get something from nothing. Let me put you out of your misery… Science and logic tell us that you cannot get something from nothing… just swallow you pride and admit your defeat here. Our existence is not logical by the laws of science as we know them.
And to answer your pointless question… of course I would choose the obvious but this question doesn’t accurately describe what we are debating and that is why I haven’t wasted my time answering it… it is a pointless question. There is NOT “much deception and lies” on the one side.. no more than on the other side… and I don’t agree with your one sided evidence claim either… there is much evidence that there is a Supreme Being… even MORE than the “evidence” against a Supreme Being. It’s a stupid question.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I said: “If you cannot show me how science can explain our existence (the birth of our existence) then you are completely and totaly wrong to insist (and arrogantly hurl insults) that we accept science and ONLY science as the explanation to our existence.”
1minoin said: “Science isn’t an explanation. It’s an area of study, a huge gigantic area of study broken into so many kinds of fields it’d take more space than we have to list them all. ”
I agree that science isn’t an explanation.. but it’s the atheists who do use it as an explanation to our existence.. right? If you reject God what other explantion is there? That was my point.
I said: “You both convieniently forget that science does NOT explain how our existence came to be… so evolution DOES NOT supply all of the answers.”
1minion said: “It can’t yet, but that doesn’t matter. Science doesn’t have to deliver all the answers today. ”
You missed the context here… this is in reference to TBG’s argument that the concept of a Supreme Being shouldn’t be addressed in the science classroom.
My point is that since we do not have all of the (scientific) answers… THE other option shouldn’t be exluded until we do have the scientific answers. Remember, science CANNOT AND DOES NOT logically explain the cause of our existence… a very key point I contend… and no one can reasonably and honestly argue this.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
No it doesn’t, Kay. The universe could be expanding from this last time it started, but that doesn’t mean that this is the first or only time the universe started. It might go through cycles of life and death, and we are in one of the cycles.
So no, that does NOT reduce it to the two options you present. There ARE other possibilities whether or not you like it.
So yes, the universe may have always existed, even if there was a big bang fourteen billion years ago or so. Before THAT big bang may have been another life and death cycle of the universe.
Kay says “swallow you pride and admit your defeat here. Our existence is not logical by the laws of science as we know them.”
That is so silly of you to think like that Kay, to claim logic to make an illogical claim. Our existence IS logical by the laws of science as we know them, and you are trying to say it ain’t. Oh well.
Thank you for finally answering my question, Kay. So now you know why I have the position that I have, because whether or not you like it the situation described in that question IS the TRUE situation of this topic. Tons of evidence and honesty on one side versus NO evidence and many lies on the other side. This is something anyone can check for themselves. LOGICALLY, since you said you picked what you call the obvious choice in my question, you should accept that humans evolved from chimps. That you don’t shows that you don’t know what you are talking about.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation…
And “a Supreme Being” and “deities” are NOT the same thing. I was not necessarily proposing the Christian God in this context. Just simply the CONCEPT of A Supreme Being. There is a difference in the context I was discussing.. if you can’t understand that … that is your problem.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
This has gone from being the “Black Knight skit” from the Monty Python and the Holy Grail movie to the “Argument Clinic skit” from the Monty Python TV series. I strongly encourage anyone who has never seen this skit to search YouTube or elsewhere to find it (“argument clinic” +”monty python” in the search engine box).
I have made my position quite clear, even though Kay frequently misrepresents it when she tries to quote me. Kay, just because quite frankly you may be too stupid or too insane to understand what I am saying doesn’t mean it ain’t so. The evidence for evolution DOES exist, like it or not.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “The universe could be expanding from this last time it started, but that doesn’t mean that this is the first or only time the universe started. It might go through cycles of life and death, and we are in one of the cycles.
So no, that does NOT reduce it to the two options you present. There ARE other possibilities whether or not you like it.”
And could you please point our in this view where the logic is? The scientific logic. Thanks.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Kay says “swallow you pride and admit your defeat here. Our existence is not logical by the laws of science as we know them.”
That is so silly of you to think like that Kay, to claim logic to make an illogical claim. Our existence IS logical by the laws of science as we know them, and you are trying to say it ain’t. Oh well.
Please remind me again of your logic of the birth of our existence again… (sorry I didn’t clarify “birth of our existence” the last time… it seems that you are getting confused again and think I’m talking about the process of our existence, which you would think that by now you would know what I’m talking about).
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
thanks for the Kay fodder, 1minion
According to you (and so far as I can tell you don’t misrepresent what other people say the way Kay does consistently), Kay says: “You are in no position to say that Genesis is false. No matter what the scientific findings imply.”
I never said Genesis is false. What I have said, and I stand by what I say supported by literally tons of evidence, is that a literal fundie-style interpretation of the Book of Genesis is NOT supported by the physical evidence of the world God created, that the central claims of Genesis cannot be tested but the peripheral claims that can be tested have been PROVEN FALSE many times by many people, and for anyone to say otherwise shows they are in denial of what is real.
SO you can take your pick, either Genesis IS false, OR God made it seem to be false by planting false evidence to mislead us, OR maybe, just maybe, your INTERPRETATION is wrong. There are other possibilities too, but in the context of accounting for the evidence that does exist, accounting for what the Book of Genesis says, and accounting for different styles of interpretation I don’t see any other possibilities.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG said: “LOGICALLY, since you said you picked what you call the obvious choice in my question, you should accept that humans evolved from chimps. That you don’t shows that you don’t know what you are talking about.”
And I could say that since I have proven my point that our existence isn’t logical that you should accept that there could be an unscientific (illogical) explanation that counters your “evidence”. And therefore it is unreasonable to declare your evidence as fact at this point.
You are trying to have it both ways… you use the unscientific God explantion when you don’t have the answers (like when you try to argue my point about our illogical (birth of) existence… but if it’s “proven” by science then that takes precidence and the other option is no longer an option. Like.. there can be no exceptions to the evolution process (humans). You are a hypocrite.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
My main source for the idea of the universe going through cycles of times are the Upanishads the sacred Hindu writings that are the ONE TRUE SOURCE for spiritual truth (sarcasm alert).
But hey, you don’t think there’s any science backing it up? Are you REALLY interested in the science, REALLY? Cool. Check the wikipedia article on Cyclic model, part of which says
“One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time.[3][4] The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the “cosmological constant”, and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
A different cyclic model relying on the notion of phantom energy was proposed in 2007 by Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[5]”
Rather than keep beating my head against a brick wall in this debate (which as I’ve pointed out, was settled a LONG time ago among the scientific community of people who study this stuff and know what evidence is and how to analyze it), I need to focus on my music and on trying to get some airplay for it, as well as getting some sponsorship for quality studio time for at least the best of the HUNDREDS of songs I’ve written that have never been recorded yet or that only have crappy amateur recordings.
I really don’t feel well and hope to die soon, but it would be nice if at least a few of the hundreds of songs I’ve written had some nice recordings so the creative output of my life can be shared with others after I’m gone.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
OH when I was typing the last post Kay posted this and I can’t resist answering it. It’s like that commercial for potato chips claiming nobody can eat just one chip. Actually, to be contrary, back in the days when that commercial was played I would make a point of only eating ONE CHIP from any bag of that particular bag, and no more, just because! AND I wouldn’t buy the bag because their claim pissed me off so much. I would eat only ONE CHIP from a bag of that brand that was offered to me by others who did buy it.
Anyway, so Kay claims “there can be no exceptions to the evolution process (humans). You are a hypocrite.”
I have reasons for saying humans are not an exception to the evolution process: THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWS A CLEAR PROGRESSION FROM MORE APE-LIKE TO MORE HUMAN-LIKE FOSSILS OVER THE PAST SIX MILLION YEARS. How do you account for that, and for the endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes at the same place in our DNA as in chimp DNA, and for our bodies matching chimps bone for bone, nerve for nerve, muscle for muscle?
Oh well, I still love you Kay even if I think you are mentally defective.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
It is amazing that the findings of modern science seem to back up ancient Hindu spiritual teachings but falsify a LITERAL reading of the Christian Bible. Again, this does NOT mean the Christian Bible is false or wrong. It DOES mean that the evidence of the physical world does NOT support a literal reading of it. That’s just the way it is, and some people like Kay don’t like it. Tough shit.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
By exception, I mean, what if the conclusion is wrong… even though the evidence is “overwhelming”… that God did create us separately, independently from the evolution process? You obviously completely reject the possibility of this; of God using His sovereign right to go against science and create us separately. Those fossils of more ape like to human like beings may be a completely different species from us that died out along with the entire planet. And God started over with us. He used a similar “blue print” to creat us as He used in His other earlier creations. The only reason you can really dismiss this theory is because you do not believe in God. That is the diference between you and believers.. They don’t dismiss science, they just acknowledge God and His unlimited capabilities and His sovereign right to do whatever He wants to do with His creation. And the other difference being that believers acknowledge that science cannot explain how our existence came to be. We have chosen not to ignore that fact. A Supreme Being makes the most sense. And that He has communicated with us thru the Bible also makes the most sense. (The Bible being one of the oldest references to a Supreme Being.) Ironically, it is believers who are the truly open minded, not the atheists/ scientists.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay says: “The only reason you can really dismiss this theory is because you do not believe in God.”
Kay, you stupid bitch. Who are you to judge whether or not anyone else believes in God? There are several reasons I can dismiss your crackpot fantasy. Number one: NO EVIDENCE. Number two: nothing in the Bible mentions this. Number three: there IS evidence to support my conclusion. Number four: the God I believe in wouldn’t try to trick us, even unintentionally by using pieces of your imaginary earlier planet. Number five: why should I believe anything you say on this matter, when you are in total denial of what is real, consistently misconstrue and misrepresent what I say, and show that you have no idea what science is, how it works, or what evidence exists?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I do love you Kay, even if I lose patience with your stupidity sometimes. To repeat, I am NOT an atheist. Just because you redefine the word to mean anyone who isn’t a fundie like you, well, whatever… To MOST people, words have accepted meanings that are in dictionaries and other sources.
You also try to redefine science to be something it is not and can never be. You also try to redefine what other people say to what you want to think they are saying, even if it is the OPPOSITE of what they are actually saying, and you continue to repeat such mistakes even after they are repeatedly pointed out to you.
YOU are living proof that fundies are mentally defective!
Hey, if I do die soon as I sincerely hope I do, and if I do have an audience with Jesus, I’ll be sure to ask Him about that imaginary earlier planet, okay?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Well, I’m done “debating” with you. You are clearly one of those people who cannot debate without getting angrier and angrier when people don’t agree with you. You’ve tried everything to try and get me to back down… I actually worried that you might have committed suicide when we hadn’t heard from you for several hours the other day. I could respond to your last comments but I’m going to pass, it’s not worth it.
LikeLike
kay said
I have a comment in moderation.
LikeLike
chrustchev said
Dorian said:
do we have a prodigious troll in chrustchev?
Yes:
“Synonyms:
1. enormous, immense, huge, gigantic, tremendous. 2. amazing, stupendous, astounding, wondrous, miraculous.”
I may not be all of those, but some are quite to the point.
But that’s none of your business, I just wish I could get rid of the email notifications from this blog , I have about forty of them in my inbox each morning.
I can’t find out if or how it may be done, nobody wants to tell me about it. I just don’t like this blog at all. Regret I found it.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I’m sorry that you’re having troubles with the email notification. I don’t know how to correct it other than setting your email program to block them.
the good news is that there will probably not be as many posts per day soon, at least not from me. I’m tired of arguing with that village idiot Kay, who has demonstrated repeatedly in her posts to this thread (and elsewhere) that the stereotypes of fundie Christians being mentally defective and anti-science are correct.
LikeLike
chrustchev said
Thank you guitarist! Your observation about fundies is quite correct. I posted “Taliban vs. evolution” at talk.origins newsgroup yesterday, after
I had learned a little more about
the fundamentalist movement. Their goal: A theocratic USA!
On a lighter note: When playing my jazz records way back in the late 1940’s, one of my friends who was quite good on the guitar fell in love with a particular guitar solo. I knew nothing about it except the name of the band. Later he went to sea and in Tampa, FL, he went to a record shop hoping to find the record – all he had to go by was the solo.
It was only much later I began to realize that that kind of guitar playing was something extraordinary in 1948.
The record was Benny Goodman’s Solo Flight, and you’d be a poor guitarist if you didn’t know who I am talking about. A great pity he had to die so young and with so much yet to be done!
WRT the email, My solution works so it isn’t much of a problem except I think it ought to be possible to unsubscribe to notifications.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
dorian:
We all live a giant ringer washer,
full of big ideas, going round and round!
We all live in a giant ringer washer,
full of petty arguments, going round and round!
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Whoops. Delete the top one. Bottom one has a correction. And then delete this one.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Kay at 216: “And “a Supreme Being” and “deities” are NOT the same thing. I was not necessarily proposing the Christian God in this context. Just simply the CONCEPT of A Supreme Being. There is a difference in the context I was discussing.. if you can’t understand that … that is your problem.”
Define Supreme Being for us.
Define deity for us.
Kay at 224: “By exception, I mean, what if the conclusion is wrong… even though the evidence is “overwhelming”… that God did create us separately, independently from the evolution process? You obviously completely reject the possibility of this; of God using His sovereign right to go against science and create us separately.”
Interesting notion, kay, and I see why it gets promoted as a possibility. Since earlier humanoid forms don’t quite match humanity as it looks today, then humanity has always looked like it looks today and those earlier humanoid forms were what, God’s first 20 drafts that never got a mention when the Bible was written?
God embarrassed by so many early mistakes he doesn’t want to admit to them on paper? Or would these proto-humans be original planet dwellers of that planet god terraformed to make Earth? Did god not create that world, too? Why did he destroy it?
Explanations of the past with this kind of nonsense belong in a science fiction novel or on some fringe self-published book site akin to Nephilim Stargates. It makes God sound more like some alien superbeing with powers on par with a Death Star than a deity worth worshiping.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, my posting here is going to be kind of irregular for a bit because the real world has got me by the throat at the moment. So I won’t blame you if you get bored and move on. I’ll see how it goes.
I don’t remember if you answered my last question. I wanted to know if our discussion on creation vs. evolution would be a philosophical one or a scientific one. If you can present a scientific law by which macroevolution occurs, then we can proceed to discuss the science of macroevolution. If you know of no scientific laws for that type of evolution, then our discussion will be a philosophical even speculative one.
So the question one more time, rephrased: Is macroevolution a science based on observed regularities in nature, or is it a philosophy…or (Darwin forbid!), even a mere speculation?
LikeLike
princessxxx said
LikeLike
dorian said
thanks for the last verse, minion!
so here’s our first collaboration. sing to the tune of “the yellow submarine” by the beatles (yeah yeah yeah!)
p.s. – punctuation unedited. darn sloth bit me again.
the adkob family evolution debate song
in the blog where i was born
rides a man named TBG
someone asked where we came from
he told the tale of the chimpanzees
we all come from the monkey family, monkey family
we all come from the monkey family, monkey family, monkey family
ratatatah-tatah-tatah (trumpets blaring)
here comes the knight on her golden steed
she is angry as can be
says her prophet may be small
but he’s got the holiest scroll
we all hail from adam’s family, adam’s family adam’s family
we all hail from adam’s family, adam’s family adam’s family
ratatatah-tatah-tatah (trumpets blaring again)
and here we have the princess x-x-x
in her sequined car with the prince of fools
they laugh and play and place some bets
who ‘ll be the first to lose his cool?
we just want to smoke and drink some booze, smoke and drink some booze, smoke and drink some booze (repeat)
ratatatah-tatah-tatah (trumpets blaring, again)
here she comes, the minion queen
logophiliac and snarky too
i don’t ask her anything
because i’m lazy and she makes me think
we all like an atheist or two, an atheist or two, an atheist or two
we all like an atheist or two, an atheist or two, an atheist or two
ratatatah-tatah-tatah (trumpets blaring, again? [good god, now what?!])
here he comes, the warrior priest, e_e
in moses’ chariot, with a cross and spear
here to bless the battlefield
break the rules, e_e appears
We all live in a giant ringer washer,
full of big ideas, going round and round! (repeat)
ratatatah-tatah-tatah, ratatatah-tatah-tah…tah !!
the end
or maybe not. i have to add another line for Hors and OTA. they’ve been been absent and i forgot! sorry. and there’s betty also. whoever comes back will be added in.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
very nice dorian.
now it’s kays turn to write a poem.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Thank you everyone for participating. Thanks for your support too, Chrustchev, and glad you found a solution. Yeah, there should be an option to unsubscribe from notifications in situations like this when rational people are trying to reason with mentally defective village idiots. It does take a lot of explanation and repetition to even try to do this, and it’s best to type real slow and use simple words so they have a better chance of understanding you. As shown here though, usually it is futile for anyone to try reasoning with somebody for whom faith trumps facts.
***************************
What SynapseAxion, you have a life outside this blog? How dare you! j/k
I did answer it, but will answer again. In fact, I’ll answer it twice. btw, you are much nicer to debate with than Kay. Like I said though, she is a blessing to me. I’m sure God sent her to teach me patience. I’m trying, Lord!
SynapseAxion asks: “So the question one more time, rephrased: Is macroevolution a science based on observed regularities in nature, or is it a philosophy…or (Darwin forbid!), even a mere speculation?”
My answer:
Macroevolution is based on observations and measurements in the field and in the lab that are neither in contradiction to nor separate from the regularities of nature humans have described so far.
Here is my original answer to the original phrasing of the question. btw, I completely understand that especially on limited time how difficult it can be to scroll through as many posts as this thread has generated so quickly to try to find a particular post.
Since evolution occurs in the natural world, then all the other so-called “laws” of nature apply to it. In other words, macroevolution occurs by all the “laws” of nature, not separate from or in contradiction to them.
So in other words, macroevolution is good, solid science and is as well-supported as many other concepts that are not in dispute (anymore) such as heliocentrism for example.
***************************
and a big thank you to 1minion for the following. I am glad I am not the only one who caught this Kayism:
Kay at 216: “And “a Supreme Being” and “deities” are NOT the same thing. I was not necessarily proposing the Christian God in this context. Just simply the CONCEPT of A Supreme Being. There is a difference in the context I was discussing.. if you can’t understand that … that is your problem.”
Define Supreme Being for us.
Define deity for us.
***************************
ty to Princess for the Python clip, and to Dorian for the song about this debate. and biggest ty to Kay without whom this blog just wouldn’t be the same.
LikeLike
dorian said
TBG, did you know that kay was the inspiration for creating this blog?
tothewire and i wanted to continue our SNL debates after the presidential election and we got e_e and created this blog. kay accepted our invitation to voice the religious conservative perspective. this is why i’m always wanting to recruit those that challenge her views. thanks, kay, for being such a champ.
i am trying to recruit other conservatives. no bites so far. maybe it’s because they see that adkob is infested with liberals. heheh
LikeLike
princessxxx said
and to be fair,
kay,
since TBG calls you the “black knight”
i came up with a good name you can call TBG.
“the singing none”
– because he sings and you don’t believe NONE of what he says.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Actually Dorian, even if Kay defines me differently, according to a very long test I took in 2008 my sincere heartfelt views on many subjects class me as a “Moderate Centrist just left of Center.” I know that might be hard to believe considering some of my posts regarding fundies. I was shocked to be just left of center. I figured I’d be maybe a third or a quarter away from the extreme left position, not nearly half as my answers indicated. It does make sense somewhat since my philosophical position is “the middle way” of Buddhism.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
LOL Princess at my new nic.
That reminds me of one of my original puns. Share if you dare but give credit where due, or due due as the case may be.
Anyone else remember “The Flying Nun” TV show of the 1960s? It could have been called “Nun of the Above.”
LikeLike
princessxxx said
haha, “nun of the above” was my name in a easter bonnet contest back in key west.
i won first place, my habit had a string attached and i could pull the string and jesus would arise from the top of my habit. $500.
plus i would lift my long skirt and expose my junk. oh hhahahahahaha. so gay.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh and before Synapse jumps on the following I want to explicate further
When I said “Macroevolution is based on observations and measurements in the field and in the lab” I am NOT saying that macroevolution itself per se has been directly observed either in the field or in the lab, but that the forensic evidence in the field (fossils) and in the lab (genetics) showing it happens is consistent with observations of microevolution and understandings of the mechanisms involved.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
In other words, the fossils are not only in the rocks but also in our genes.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
let’s move to a new thread to continue this, so long scrolls won’t be needed and to save Chrustchev’s email inbox.
LikeLike
dorian said
okay, let’s move to https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/im-no-kin-to-the-monkey/
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hey Synapse, did you catch the link to the new thread for our debate to continue?
I am reposting your latest question and my response to it there. Thanks.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
1minion.. I have a response to comment #236 here…
It’s comment #6
LikeLike
chrustchev said
Ho ho ho…,
I think I found a solution, g’bye!
LikeLike