AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Dale_Husband

form_srcid: Dale_Husband

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.205.175.144

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Dale_Husband

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Dale_Husband%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/07/21 09:18:27, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Guest @ July 17 2008,15:10)
From NatGeo Tweaks ID 'Just For The Halibut':

well I guess they will keep their erroneous concept of falsification.

nice going Dave!

Saying it's erroneous means nothing without proving it. Put up or shut up!

Date: 2008/10/20 21:32:44, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Guest @ Oct. 19 2008,23:50)
From Scientific Vacuity of ID: Lactose Digestion in E. coli:

<b>About DaveScot:</b>

http://www.uncommondescent.com/about/

<blockquote>
DaveScot is a retired microcomputer hardware/software design engineer. He built his first ham radio back in the 1960's and designed his last computer at Dell in 1999 before he got out of the rat race. His employers have included Intel and Microsoft doing the usual things plus things as off the wall as developing O/S software for personal robots at Nolan Bushnell's company "Androbot" in 1981. Last but not least Dave was a USMC sergeant in mid-1970's working in a fighter jet group repairing aviation related electronic equipment. He has loved all the hard sciences all his life, is a convinced agnostic, and has been engaged in the ID debate for a few years.
</blockquote>

<b>An investigation should show why he got out of the computer "rat race" and the Marines. Maybe he was fired for incompetence? I can't imagine a lower life than writing for a hack site like Uncommon Descent (into madness).</b>

I guess my sarcastic wit was a little too much for PvM. He also closed a thread in which I was arguing with the fundamentalist moron known a FL. Oh, well, can't argue with the moderators on their own blog, but I'm just making a note of it anyway.

Date: 2008/10/20 21:45:24, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 20 2008,20:58)
Denyse's latest post: "Liberal fascism: What it is and why you should care?"

So much for too much politics.

Liberal fascism? I don't see how anyone can seriously say such nonsense in public, and even write a book with that title (I saw it in a bookstore recently). I guess blatantly lying out their butts is all the neo-Cons that have been running the American empire have got left to throw at their opposition. Idiots! Time to bury them all!

Date: 2008/10/25 01:00:42, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
As a native of Texas, I am naturally VERY concerned about the status of science education here. Boy, am I going to be biting my nails for the next year or two, at least!

Date: 2009/09/14 17:23:14, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.

And furthermore:
It's not just evolution that discredits Genesis.

Facts do not lie, but people, including those who write what they claim are sacred scriptures, often do.

Date: 2009/09/16 01:01:09, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?
:D

Date: 2009/09/16 15:06:32, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Earlier, I said:
   
Quote
If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:37)


Well, you may want to read that paragraph again Dale.  What you're writing there--whether I agree with it or not (and I don't)--is actually REINFORCING the truth claim that I'm seeking to defend in this main debate thread:  "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."

What you're saying there is NOT causing evolution to become compatible with Christianity.  Instead you're recommending a course of action (abandonment of Christianity) that apparently assumes that indeed there does exists a real incompatibility somewhere, and that abandoning Christianity is the most rational way (as you see it) to respond to that real incompatibility.

Nice reinforcement of incompatibility there.  Also your suggestion that Genesis is "discredited", and that the writers of the Scriptures may be lying, likewise doesn't create any reconciliations between evolution and Christianity.

FloydLee

FL, I merely took your assumptions and followed them to its logical conclusion. And in response, you totally failed to refute my statement that the historical case for Christianity is far weaker than the scientific case for evolution.

I have no problem with people accepting evolution and also being Christians, because I do not assume that all religious people have to be idiotic. And the historical case for the existence of Jesus doesn't even depend on whether or not evolution happens.  You, on the other hand, seem to have a lower opinion of most religious  people than I do. Ironic, isn't it?

Date: 2009/09/16 15:19:47, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
And now for an explanation of how one can beleive in God and Jesus and not blindly assume, as FL does, that every claim written in the Bible thousands of years ago by non-scientists must be true.
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007....asphemy

2000 years ago, Jesus warned his early followers: “Not everyone who calls to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do my Father’s will may enter. On the Judgement Day many will say to me, ‘Lord, didn’t we prophesy, cast out demons, and do many miracles in your name?’ But I will say to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you that do evil!’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23)

I would suggest that the thing which will condemn someone to hell, even though they profess to believe in Jesus, will be the person’s placing the Bible above God Himself. Fundamentalists have claimed for over a century that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore infallible. This claim has no support whatsoever. Attempts to support it by references to the Bible are circular reasoning. Only God Himself should ever be seen as infallible, and since we have no direct contact with Him, we have nothing that may be considered infallible. The Bible, the Quran, and other religious books may be inspired by faith in God, but they are still human products, and are thus prone to error like all other human products. The Quran itself condemns the tendency of man to make partners with Allah, so should it be acceptable for any Muslim to make the Quran a partner with Allah?

In this physical world, there is NOTHING and NO ONE that may rightfully be called infallible!


 
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....-of-god

One of the great tragedies of the Protestant Reformation, in addition to destroying forever the unity of the Christians in western Europe, was that it enshrined the Bible as the sole source of dogma among Protestants. Now, I will grant that the incredible corruption and tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages made the Reformation both necessary and inevitable, but the way it was done by most Protestants made spiritual tyranny inevitable among them as well. This was because they simply replaced the Catholic papacy and church councils with the Bible itself, or rather, how Protestant leaders read the Bible. Calling the Word of God what is actually your INTERPRETATION of words of men writing in the name of God is stretching things beyond any bounds of logic you can imagine, which is why Christians constantly emphasize faith as their standard.


When you read the Bible, you are not reading the original Word of God at all, but something that was written by various authors (in many cases, unknown), copied many times, translated, printed and published in various languages and editions over thousands of years. After all this time, there is really no way we can tell what the real Word of God may be, and instead we are left with something that gives a dim view of God at best. It is like someone telling a long and complex story to a friend, who then repeats that story to another friend, and so on until eventually the story has been repeated about 30 or 40 times and finally the original storyteller hears the story again….and realizes how inaccurate his story has become, even with details added or omitted that he never intended, maybe even with different character names and a different outcome made by people who didn’t like the story as it had been told originally. Nowhere does this analogy become more apt than with the four Gospels in the New Testament, with their own contradictions and altered, added and omitted details. None of them were written by Jesus himself, and they were written decades after the events they describe, as even fundamentalists admit in their own propaganda.

The conflict between Creationism and evolution in the life of creation “scientist” Kurt Wise illustrates the absurdity of Biblical dogmatism clearly. He was unable to let go of his assumption that the Bible was infallible, so he declared, despite his scientific training (even studying under Stephen Jay Gould), that the teachings of the Bible trumped any physical evidence from the universe that supported evolution. This is illogical, since the Bible itself says that God created the universe and mankind, thus one would expect what we find when we study the universe to be the tool by which we can confirm whether or not the Bible is God’s Word. And the intelligence that God supposedly gave us must also be used as a tool to determine what is true or even acceptable, or God wouldn’t have given us brains in the first place.

But the Biblical dogmatist says that without the Bible, most of us would not know of God at all. That may be true, but that would not justify adhereing to absurdities or even outright lies for the sake of beleiving in God. We know that the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a boy was made up to illustrate the moral value of honesty (how ironic), but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist, since all the other historical records of his military achievements and Presidency are beyond dispute. We need to use science and reason to find out what is valid and reject what is rediculous, or we will doom ourselves.

Jesus himself said that the Jews of his time erred by “teaching as doctrines (of God) that teachings of men.” And that is true whether you believe in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church traditions or the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura. Either way, you will be led into tyranny. Truth can only be found via science, never dogma of any kind. Science unifies people by showing what is true via objective study of the universe and everything in it, while religion with its baseless assertions divides people.

It must be noted that my statement is just as applicable to Islam, the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran cannot be the Word of Allah, though it contains much wisdom. It also contains much evil and must be regarded critically by science and reason just as much as the Bible.

Date: 2009/09/17 14:45:30, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:07)
 
Quote
doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible.  In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology?


The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology.  

You will NOT see them denying teleology, instead they just stay silent and stick to whatever they can back up with science.   You won't see public claims of:

"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."

"Physics is a completely mindless process..."

"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."

"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

FloydLee

Actually, ALL parts of science rely on methological naturalism, not just evolution. It's just that religious fanatics like you keep asserting, without any real evidence, that life could not have arisen without supernatural intervention. In science, the proper answer to that question is, "We do not know yet."  You no longer assert that God controls the weather for two reasons:

1. It makes you look totally rediculous to do so, since the causes of changing weather patterns ARE well known and have been for decades.

2. When storms, droughts, heat waves and floods occur, it makes God look evil to say He is responsible for them.

Date: 2009/09/17 14:55:21, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
When you read the Sermon on the Mount, does it say anything against evolution? Not that I've ever seen. Isn't following its teachings and other statements by Jesus what being a Christian is all about? Isn't being a Christian about following Jesus, not following some particular interpretation that assumes the Genesis creation myths are literally true?

Date: 2009/09/19 17:05:00, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Gee, it seems that I already debunked FL's claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity by showing that one may believe in God and Jesus and not be blind followers of everything the Bible says as literally true. Why? Because the Bible was written by fallible, sinful men, not any God, and it would be insulting God Himself to claim otherwise.

Quote

If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.

And furthermore:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....genesis

Facts do not lie, but people, including those who write what they claim are sacred scriptures, often do.


Quote
I have no problem with people accepting evolution and also being Christians, because I do not assume that all religious people have to be idiotic. And the historical case for the existence of Jesus doesn't even depend on whether or not evolution happens.  You, on the other hand, seem to have a lower opinion of most religious  people than I do. Ironic, isn't it?


Quote
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153310  


Did he ever address my arguments there? Appearantly not!

Date: 2009/09/21 19:09:33, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,14:37)
Quote
Gee, it seems that I already debunked FL's claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity by showing that one may believe in God and Jesus and not be blind followers of everything the Bible says as literally true. Why? Because the Bible was written by fallible, sinful men, not any God, and it would be insulting God Himself to claim otherwise.

Well, let's see Dale.  First, you've just denied the operation of the providence of God in the making of the Scriptures.

And this is a problem for you? Maybe you just need to grow up.

Second, your particular argument attacking the reliability of the Scriptures, is just as quickly applicable to the Gospels as well as Genesis, and is just as severe an attack on the historical claims of the Cross of Christ as well as the Creation.

Only if you assume that if the records of Jesus' life are not totally accurate, then the entire record is worthless. Rather, a little critical thinking would debunk those parts that are false and discover those that are true, resulting in a more accurate record about Jesus.

So you haven't reconciled anything between evolution and Christianity by your specific argument there.  Instead, you've denied an important biblical attribute of God, and ALSO succeeded in employing a skeptic-argument that actualy attacks Christianity itself, not just Creation.  Good job!

But you can still beleive in God and Jesus without beleiving blasphemous absurdities about the Bible, FL.

Date: 2009/09/21 22:04:26, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Evolution need not destroy anyone's faith in God or Jesus, unless you choose to reject those concepts. And rejecting them is not dependent on what you read in any book, see in any movie, or hear from any person. But when you are told repeatedly that the only true form of Christianity is that which denies evolution, you can end up with a shallow faith that is really without foundation. If you recognize that the Bible is indeed just a man-made book, then you can look at the REAL Word of God that has always been out there: the universe itself. And it is SCIENCE that is the tool to study that. We can then establish our theology and other religious concepts based on what science tells us. Not what the Bible says. There is nothing in science that denies the existence of God or denies that Jesus was sent by God to establish Christianity. But if the Bible says that man was created out of dust instead of being evolved from earlier animals, or that the Earth is 6000 years old, then it is wrong. And we cannot base our theology on what is wrong.

Date: 2009/09/22 23:20:10, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
FL seems to have totally ignored my damning point I made looooooooooooooooong ago here. So I'll repeat it and spell it out for him and the rest of you:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....genesis


It’s not just evolution that discredits Genesis!

It’s modern astronomy as well, as this one verse makes painfully clear:

Genesis 1:16 – “God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.”

Of course, one looking at the night sky with no knowledge of modern astronomy would assume that  the stars are nothing more than a decoration  to add to the light provided by the Sun and the Moon. But in fact, many stars are far bigger and brighter than the Sun and ALL stars are also suns, greater lights in their own star systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8BncJ7XMLk

Had that Bible verse been inspired by the true Creator of the universe, it might have been written: “God made billions of great lights, one of which we call the Sun that rules our days, and also made a lesser light to rule the night.”

Ironically,  in another part of the Bible, we read:

Psalms 19:1-2: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”

If that is true, then clearly we need to toss out the references to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in Genesis, since they fail to “declare the glory of God” and also fail to “display knowledge” like the heavens are supposed to do according to the 19th Psalm.

Date: 2009/09/22 23:40:08, Link
Author: Dale_Husband

The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.


Quote


Matthew 16:15-19 (King James Version)

15 [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.



Nothing there about believeing in Creationism. Especially not the Young Earth kind.

Date: 2009/09/23 15:37:14, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
On what basis does FL, or anyone else, have to claim that the Bible is inerrant? Or that the inerrancy of the Bible is the only reason to beleive in Christianity? Or that we must believe every part of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation?

If we threw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis and just kept the Gospels, we would still have the foundation of Christianity. So FL's claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatable are not based on any definite proof at all. The claim that the Bible is the Word of God, and that we know God is real from the Bible, is circular reasoning that has no value whatsoever. You can have faith in the Bible, but not to the point of stupidity. God gave us minds to seek truth and expose and reject falsehoods. We insult God by not using those minds.

http://www.care2.com/c2c....pg.html

Date: 2009/09/23 23:42:51, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
And, of course, FL ignored the point I made earlier once more. Here it is again.
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 23 2009,15:37)
On what basis does FL, or anyone else, have to claim that the Bible is inerrant? Or that the inerrancy of the Bible is the only reason to beleive in Christianity? Or that we must believe every part of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation?

If we threw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis and just kept the Gospels, we would still have the foundation of Christianity. So FL's claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatable are not based on any definite proof at all. The claim that the Bible is the Word of God, and that we know God is real from the Bible, is circular reasoning that has no value whatsoever. You can have faith in the Bible, but not to the point of stupidity. God gave us minds to seek truth and expose and reject falsehoods. We insult God by not using those minds.

http://www.care2.com/c2c....pg.html

Date: 2009/09/24 09:14:40, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 24 2009,09:09)
 
Quote
Floyd, this doesn't make any sense. How can someone be a "Christian" and affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity when you've insisted that isn't possible? Are you suggesting that the Pope is lying?

Nope, just saying that he's wrong about that claim of compatibility (to the extent that he's claiming it.)
Didn't say that he was lying about it; didn't say that he's not a Christian.

Then your views on the supposed incompatibility of Christianity with evolution are strictly your own extremist perpective, which most other Christians are free to reject as irrational.

People lose faith in Christianity because of loons like you, FL, not because of evolution.

Date: 2009/09/24 13:59:11, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
This debate was rediculous from the beginning. Why not end it now?

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA622.html

Claim CA622:
Without a literal Fall, there is no need for redemption and thus no need for Jesus or Christianity.
Source:
Grant, Heber J., Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley. n.d. Mormon view of evolution. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons....eom.htm
Morris, Henry M. 1998. The fall, the curse, and evolution. Back to Genesis 112 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=837
Response:
1. It is sin in general, and not merely one particular instance of sin, that makes redemption necessary. If you can find any sin in the world, then the claim is baseless. Proof of this is given by the fact that many Christians feel the need for redemption but do not believe in a literal Fall.


2. This claim implies that sin and redemption are about things that happened thousands of years ago, not about anything happening to us today. It makes religion less relevant to people's lives.


3. Origins are not determined by our personal decisions of what religion to follow.

Date: 2009/09/24 18:11:52, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

Claim CA602:
Evolution is atheistic.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 215.
Response:
1. For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.


2. Many, perhaps most, evolutionists are not atheists. If you take the claim seriously, you must claim that the following people are atheists, to give just a few examples:


Sir Ronald Fisher -- the most distinguished theoretical biologist in the history of evolutionary thought. He was also a Christian (a member of the Church of England) and a conservative whose social views were somewhere to the right of Louis XIV.
Pope John Paul II -- a social conservative.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution.
President Jimmy Carter -- a devout and active Southern Baptist.

More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)


3. Anyone worried about atheism should be more concerned about creationism. Creationism can lead to a crisis of faith when people discover that its claims are false and its tactics frequently dishonest. This has led some people to abandon religion altogether (Greene n.d.). It has led others to a qualitatively different understanding of Christianity (Morton 2000).


4. By saying that only one religious interpretation is correct and universal, creationism typically is a rejection of every other religious interpretation. For example, young-earth creationists reject the religious interpretation that the universe is more than 10,000 years old (Sarfati 2004), and design theorists reject the idea that God has guided evolution (Dembski 1996). For people whose beliefs about God differ from those of a creationist, that creationism might just as well be atheistic.

Date: 2009/09/24 23:15:53, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 24 2009,22:11)
What the heck does me providing something about a local flood have to do with wether you talk about a global one?

A global Flood would have left a distinct world wide layer of evidence in the geologic record, with discontinuity between what's below it and what's above it. If such a layer had actually been detected, the people that believe the Flood happened would be sharing that information all over the place.

Henry


Uh, that's exactly what Creationists claim, that all those dinosaurs and other creatures buried in the rocks ARE proof of the Great Flood.

NO, THEY ARE NOT! The only way that could be halfway plausible is if the creatures buried were simular to those living today. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them are NOT! Indeed, one of the fundamental assumptions of early Creationists was that extinction was not supposed to happen because that would spoil God's perfect plan for the universe.

So today's Creationists get around that difficulty by asserting that dinosaurs DID exist, but they died out after the Flood. Which makes one wonder why God would have had them preserved on the Ark in the first place.

Face it: The Bible was written by and for people who lived on a FLAT Earth that was STATIONARY and only a FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD. Anyone who asserts that the Bible is consistent with modern science is a liar, including FL.

And that is why I assert that anyone who claims the Bible is the Word of God is a BLASPHEMER! No real Creator God would EVER have inspired such a shoddy work!

Date: 2009/09/24 23:37:16, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Any Creationist who cites the Book of Isaiah to prove that the ancient Hebrews beleived in a spherical Earth. They are liars, because the passage in question, Isaiah 40:22, says "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." CIRCLE, not SPHERE! A circle is a FLAT shape!

Ironically, that same book says here:
Isaiah 44:18: "Such stupidity and ignorance! Their eyes are closed and they cannot see. Their minds are shut and they cannot think."  Which describes Creationists perfectly.

Date: 2009/09/24 23:42:48, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
I run a group in Care2 titled Evolution Education. Here is a thread there of "Lame Claims of Creationists". Have fun with it!

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=668443

Date: 2009/09/25 20:59:46, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote
(Btw, Evolution Sunday was NOT created by Christians, but instead by an Atheist---Michael Zimmerman.   Go figure!!)


What that proves is that Zimmerman is more tolerant of Christianity than you are of atheism, FL.

You really don't get it, do you? Your obsession with proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity is bound to result in the total downfall of the religion. People don't like being lied to about something as fundamental as their origins or ancestry and you cannot fool people who know all the facts and live up to them. You makes God look like a liar, which is the ultimate blasphemy. Of course, if you WANT to beleive in a God who is a liar and an idiot, be my guest. Don't expect me and others who know better to accept that.

You need to grow up, and find a God that is real, not the childish one you know. He is dead and must be buried to save humanity.

Date: 2009/09/29 12:46:57, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 29 2009,10:20)
So the best explanation FL can provide to explain why so many Christians, including the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution is a big whiny fit about how they're some how afraid to discuss their faith with secular people?  Obviously, it didn't occur to FL that some people don't feel it necessary to find faith and salvation in ancient absurdities.

Quote
So the best explanation FL can provide to explain why so many Christians, including the last two Popes, have absolutely no conflict with accepting the facts of evolution is a big whiny fit about how they're some how afraid to discuss their faith with secular people?  Obviously, it didn't occur to FL that some people don't feel it necessary to find faith and salvation in ancient absurdities.


If the Pope is not afraid of denouncing abortion and birth control, which cause many secular people to laugh at or scorn him, why would he be afraid to be a YEC and say so openly?

FL needs to realize that a lie is a lie, no matter where it is found, even in the Bible itself. Science can find truth about the universe we live in and we can use that science to test the validity of any theology.

So with science we can throw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but keep the ethical teachings of Jesus. The assumption that we must accept the literal teachings of Genesis is nonsense. Jesus is not even mentioned there!


Quote

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH050.html
Claim CH050:
True science and true religion are founded on Genesis. All Biblical doctrines have their foundations laid there, and the book of Genesis itself is founded on the events of its first chapter.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1983. Creation is the foundation. Impact 126 (Dec.). http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=218
Response:
1. This claim is an instance of religious bigotry. Lots of religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism, and many more, have no connection with Genesis at all. For a person to say that these are not true religions is
A. a gross insult to the people who practice the religions. Many of these people are highly devout, with a spiritual relationship at least as great as any creationist.
B. a gross insult to God. The person is saying that God's revelation must coincide with his own opinion to be valid, that God cannot reveal himself differently to different people. Anyone making this claim places themself above God.
C. a disservice to oneself. Bigotry is hateful and will prevent good relationships with good people.


2. If Genesis is so all-important, why do creationists reject serious study of it? Modern (and even not-so-modern) scholarship has revealed much about the authors of Genesis (called J, E, P, and R) and other books of the Old Testament, including their motivations and places in history. For example, the Flood account is an interleaving of two different flood stories by J and P (Friedman 1987). Creationists studiously avoid any such knowledge. (Creationists are not alone in this; most Christians generally are woefully ignorant of biblical scholarship.)


3. Ideas in other parts of the Bible stand on their own. Creationists themselves frequently quote them out of context. The Old Testament itself refers to documents that no longer exist; the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); the Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18); and others (1 Kings 11:41; 14:29, 19, 16:5; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 20:34, 13:22). Knowledge of earlier scriptures is helpful but not critical. Jesus sometimes rejected the letter of some Old Testament laws, so the letter of the Old Testament cannot be too important, and Jesus exemplified the spirit. The reason creationists find Genesis so important is because they depend on it, not because other parts of the Bible depend on it.


4. If one believes that God created the earth and heavens, then surely the earth and heavens are God's primary work. Study of the earth and heavens should be foundational. Placing an object such as the Bible before them is idolatry.


5. No accepted science has ever been based on the Bible. That is not for lack of trying. Up to the nineteenth century, serious scientists tried to accomodate literal readings of the Bible to what they saw in nature. Young-earth creationism failed early on, so scientists tried gap creationism, day-age creationism, and other attempted reconciliations. But purely Bible-based science has always failed. True science is based on reality as expressed in the world (Young 1988).


Quote

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101_1.html
Claim CH101.1:
If the Bible cannot be trusted on scientific and historical matters, then it cannot be trusted on matters of salvation and spirituality.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000. The vital importance of believing in recent creation. Back to Genesis 138 (June). http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=874
Response:
1. The Bible was not intended to teach matters of science and history. Therefore, those areas should not be held to standards of literal accuracy.


2. The general ideas in the Bible, such as salvation and God's majesty, do not rely on literalism for their communication. An error or contradiction in detail does not affect the overall message.


3. The claim is a non sequitur. That something is wrong in one area does not prevent it from being perfectly accurate in another.


4. Theologians through the ages have considered parts of the Bible suspect but accepted the rest as canon. In fact, it was exactly such a process by which canon was determined. Even Martin Luther considered some Old Testament passages suspect (Armstrong 1996; Engwer n.d.; Shea 1997).


5. A logical consequence of this claim is that the Bible cannot, in fact, be trusted, because parts of it (not only Genesis) are known to be wrong if interpreted literally.

6. Creationists themselves sometimes make claims that contradict the Bible. For example, Whitcomb and Morris (1961, 69) claimed, contrary to Genesis 7:21-23, that some land animals not aboard Noah's ark survived.


Quote

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102_2_1.html
Claim CH102.2.1:
Jesus refers to creation and flood as though they were literal, which shows that those stories were, in fact, literal.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204,246,253-254.
Response:
Jesus's referring to traditional stories does not mean those stories were literal. People today refer to "the boy who cried wolf" and "blind men examining an elephant" and other stories the same way. Yet they do not consider those stories to be literally true. Their value, and the value of the stories Jesus refers to, is as stories, not as historical record.


Quote

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102.html
Claim CH102:
The Bible should be read literally.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204.
Response:
1. A literal reading of the Bible misses the meaning behind the details (Hyers 1983). It is like reading Aesop's Fables without trying to see the moral of the stories. Finding the meaning in a figurative reading requires more thought, but is thinking about the Bible a bad thing?


2. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Bible that cannot be resolved without excessive pseudological contortions unless one does not take them literally. Augustine said,
Quote
It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn (Augustine 1982, 42-43).

Augustine's warning has merit. The invalid "proofs" necessary to support antievolution, a global flood, and a young earth, and the contradictions implied by literalism have pushed people away from Christianity (Hildeman 2004; Morton n.d.).


3. There are several passages of the Bible itself that indicate that it should not be taken literally:
2 Corinthians 3:6 says of the new covenant, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
1 Corinthians 9:9-12 says that one of the laws of Moses is figurative, not literal.
Galatians 4:24 says that the story of Abraham is an allegory.
Jesus frequently taught in parables, with the obvious intention that the lesson from the story, not the details of the story, was what was important.


4. There is extensive tradition in Christianity, including Catholicism and Protestantism, of accepting nonliteral interpretations (Rogerson 1992). Biblical literalism is not a requirement; it is a fashion.


5. Reading the Bible requires consideration of the society in which and for which it was written. The pressing issue in Israel when Genesis 1 was written was monotheism versus polytheism. Genesis 1 is written to show that different aspects of nature -- light and dark, earth and sky, sun, moon, and stars, plants and animals -- do not have their separate gods but all fall under one God (Hyers 1983).


6. Nobody reads the Bible entirely literally anyway. For example, when God says, "into your hands they [all wild animals] are delivered" (Gen. 9:2), the phrase is obviously meant metaphorically.


7. Even reading the Bible literally requires interpretation. For example, what does "fountains of the deep" (Prov. 8:28) mean?

Date: 2009/09/29 20:21:14, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:43)
Quote
flattery will get you no where.

What flattery?  I never said you offered any reconciliation -- not even remotely -- of any of the five large incompatibilities on the table, ohh no.

I simply gave you credit for that which you did offer.  You offered it in sincerity, it did shed a bit of light on how you view the situation, it was helpful.
So I gave an honest "thank you" for your effort, as was due.

Note that FL never even bothered to address the vital points I made about the Bible earlier.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154539
No wonder nmgirl
was not impressed with him.

Date: 2009/09/29 20:33:42, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 28 2009,19:00)
1.  What is biblical Christianity?

As opposed to non-Biblical Christianity? I do not think there is such a thing.

2.  If the world is only a few thousand years old, why did God fake the ages of the rocks?

This illustrates the blasphemy of Young Earth Creationism (YEC). There is no evidence that God actually inspired the Bible, but it stands to reason that if any sort of God created the universe, we can learn about Him by studying His Creation. YECs claiming that we can learn more about God by studing some man-made book rather than something, the universe itself, that man could not have made is an absurdity, quite simply. Science depends on the physical and chemical laws being consistent over time and space, without exception. If that is not so, then reality itself becomes meaningless.

I'm not FL, but I'd like a shot at answering those earlier questions by nmgirl:

Date: 2009/09/29 21:39:36, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.

Date: 2009/10/01 00:07:11, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Once again, FL ignored what I posted while playing games with others. That's all he's ever done since he came here, play games.

Date: 2009/10/03 13:07:59, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
I never expected this "debate" to be productive. So for my final posts on this thread, I'll bring all my earlier points together:

 
Quote
If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.

And furthermore, see here:
 
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....genesis

It’s not just evolution that discredits Genesis!

It’s modern astronomy as well, as this one verse makes painfully clear:

Genesis 1:16 – “God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.”

Of course, one looking at the night sky with no knowledge of modern astronomy would assume that  the stars are nothing more than a decoration  to add to the light provided by the Sun and the Moon. But in fact, many stars are far bigger and brighter than the Sun and ALL stars are also suns, greater lights in their own star systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8BncJ7XMLk

Had that Bible verse been inspired by the true Creator of the universe, it might have been written: “God made billions of great lights, one of which we call the Sun that rules our days, and also made a lesser light to rule the night.”

Ironically,  in another part of the Bible, we read:

Psalms 19:1-2: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”

If that is true, then clearly we need to toss out the references to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in Genesis, since they fail to “declare the glory of God” and also fail to “display knowledge” like the heavens are supposed to do according to the 19th Psalm.



Facts do not lie, but people, including those who write what they claim are sacred scriptures, often do.


 
Quote

And now for an explanation of how one can beleive in God and Jesus and not blindly assume, as FL does, that every claim written in the Bible thousands of years ago by non-scientists must be true.

 
Quote


http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007....asphemy

2000 years ago, Jesus warned his early followers: “Not everyone who calls to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do my Father’s will may enter. On the Judgement Day many will say to me, ‘Lord, didn’t we prophesy, cast out demons, and do many miracles in your name?’ But I will say to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you that do evil!’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23)

I would suggest that the thing which will condemn someone to hell, even though they profess to believe in Jesus, will be the person’s placing the Bible above God Himself. Fundamentalists have claimed for over a century that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore infallible. This claim has no support whatsoever. Attempts to support it by references to the Bible are circular reasoning. Only God Himself should ever be seen as infallible, and since we have no direct contact with Him, we have nothing that may be considered infallible. The Bible, the Quran, and other religious books may be inspired by faith in God, but they are still human products, and are thus prone to error like all other human products. The Quran itself condemns the tendency of man to make partners with Allah, so should it be acceptable for any Muslim to make the Quran a partner with Allah?

In this physical world, there is NOTHING and NO ONE that may rightfully be called infallible!




 
Quote


http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....-of-god

One of the great tragedies of the Protestant Reformation, in addition to destroying forever the unity of the Christians in western Europe, was that it enshrined the Bible as the sole source of dogma among Protestants. Now, I will grant that the incredible corruption and tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages made the Reformation both necessary and inevitable, but the way it was done by most Protestants made spiritual tyranny inevitable among them as well. This was because they simply replaced the Catholic papacy and church councils with the Bible itself, or rather, how Protestant leaders read the Bible. Calling the Word of God what is actually your INTERPRETATION of words of men writing in the name of God is stretching things beyond any bounds of logic you can imagine, which is why Christians constantly emphasize faith as their standard.


When you read the Bible, you are not reading the original Word of God at all, but something that was written by various authors (in many cases, unknown), copied many times, translated, printed and published in various languages and editions over thousands of years. After all this time, there is really no way we can tell what the real Word of God may be, and instead we are left with something that gives a dim view of God at best. It is like someone telling a long and complex story to a friend, who then repeats that story to another friend, and so on until eventually the story has been repeated about 30 or 40 times and finally the original storyteller hears the story again….and realizes how inaccurate his story has become, even with details added or omitted that he never intended, maybe even with different character names and a different outcome made by people who didn’t like the story as it had been told originally. Nowhere does this analogy become more apt than with the four Gospels in the New Testament, with their own contradictions and altered, added and omitted details. None of them were written by Jesus himself, and they were written decades after the events they describe, as even fundamentalists admit in their own propaganda.

The conflict between Creationism and evolution in the life of creation “scientist” Kurt Wise illustrates the absurdity of Biblical dogmatism clearly. He was unable to let go of his assumption that the Bible was infallible, so he declared, despite his scientific training (even studying under Stephen Jay Gould), that the teachings of the Bible trumped any physical evidence from the universe that supported evolution. This is illogical, since the Bible itself says that God created the universe and mankind, thus one would expect what we find when we study the universe to be the tool by which we can confirm whether or not the Bible is God’s Word. And the intelligence that God supposedly gave us must also be used as a tool to determine what is true or even acceptable, or God wouldn’t have given us brains in the first place.

But the Biblical dogmatist says that without the Bible, most of us would not know of God at all. That may be true, but that would not justify adhereing to absurdities or even outright lies for the sake of beleiving in God. We know that the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a boy was made up to illustrate the moral value of honesty (how ironic), but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist, since all the other historical records of his military achievements and Presidency are beyond dispute. We need to use science and reason to find out what is valid and reject what is rediculous, or we will doom ourselves.

Jesus himself said that the Jews of his time erred by “teaching as doctrines (of God) that teachings of men.” And that is true whether you believe in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church traditions or the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura. Either way, you will be led into tyranny. Truth can only be found via science, never dogma of any kind. Science unifies people by showing what is true via objective study of the universe and everything in it, while religion with its baseless assertions divides people.

It must be noted that my statement is just as applicable to Islam, the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran cannot be the Word of Allah, though it contains much wisdom. It also contains much evil and must be regarded critically by science and reason just as much as the Bible.




 
Quote

ALL parts of science rely on methological naturalism, not just evolution. It's just that religious fanatics like FL keep asserting, without any real evidence, that life could not have arisen without supernatural intervention. In science, the proper answer to that question is, "We do not know yet."  You no longer assert that God controls the weather for two reasons:

1. It makes you look totally rediculous to do so, since the causes of changing weather patterns ARE well known and have been for decades.

2. When storms, droughts, heat waves and floods occur, it makes God look evil to say He is responsible for them.


 
Quote

When you read the Sermon on the Mount, does it say anything against evolution? Not that I've ever seen. Isn't following its teachings and other statements by Jesus what being a Christian is all about? Isn't being a Christian about following Jesus, not following some particular interpretation that assumes the Genesis creation myths are literally true?

I have no problem with people accepting evolution and also being Christians, because I do not assume that all religious people have to be idiotic. And the historical case for the existence of Jesus doesn't even depend on whether or not evolution happens.  FL, on the other hand, seems to have a lower opinion of most religious  people than I do. Ironic, isn't it?

The important point to remember is that Christianity is not based on the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. It is based on whether you beleive that Jesus was the Messiah predicted to come and save the world.

 
Quote

Matthew 16:15-19 (King James Version)

15 [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Nothing there about believeing in Creationism. Especially not the Young Earth kind.



Quote


On what basis does FL, or anyone else, have to claim that the Bible is inerrant? Or that the inerrancy of the Bible is the only reason to beleive in Christianity? Or that we must believe every part of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation?

If we threw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis and just kept the Gospels, we would still have the foundation of Christianity. So FL's claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatable are not based on any definite proof at all. The claim that the Bible is the Word of God, and that we know God is real from the Bible, is circular reasoning that has no value whatsoever. You can have faith in the Bible, but not to the point of stupidity. God gave us minds to seek truth and expose and reject falsehoods. We insult God by not using those minds.

http://www.care2.com/c2c....pg.html



 
Quote


http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA622.html

Claim CA622:
Without a literal Fall, there is no need for redemption and thus no need for Jesus or Christianity.
Source:
Grant, Heber J., Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley. n.d. Mormon view of evolution. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons....eom.htm
Morris, Henry M. 1998. The fall, the curse, and evolution. Back to Genesis 112 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=837
Response:
1. It is sin in general, and not merely one particular instance of sin, that makes redemption necessary. If you can find any sin in the world, then the claim is baseless. Proof of this is given by the fact that many Christians feel the need for redemption but do not believe in a literal Fall.

2. This claim implies that sin and redemption are about things that happened thousands of years ago, not about anything happening to us today. It makes religion less relevant to people's lives.

3. Origins are not determined by our personal decisions of what religion to follow.



 
Quote


What Young Earth Creationists claim is that all those dinosaurs and other creatures buried in the rocks ARE proof of the Great Flood.

NO, THEY ARE NOT! The only way that could be halfway plausible is if the creatures buried were simular to those living today. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them are NOT! Indeed, one of the fundamental assumptions of early Creationists was that extinction was not supposed to happen because that would spoil God's perfect plan for the universe.

So today's Creationists get around that difficulty by asserting that dinosaurs DID exist, but they died out after the Flood. Which makes one wonder why God would have had them preserved on the Ark in the first place.

Face it: The Bible was written by and for people who lived on a FLAT Earth that was STATIONARY and only a FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD. Anyone who asserts that the Bible is consistent with modern science is a liar, including FL.

And that is why I assert that anyone who claims the Bible is the Word of God is a BLASPHEMER! No real Creator God would EVER have inspired such a shoddy work!

FL really doesn't get it, does he? His obsession with proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity is bound to result in the total downfall of the religion. People don't like being lied to about something as fundamental as their origins or ancestry and he cannot fool people who know all the facts and live up to them. He makes God look like a liar, which is the ultimate blasphemy. Of course, if he WANTS to beleive in a God who is a liar and an idiot, be my guest. Don't expect me and others who know better to accept that.

Date: 2009/10/03 13:20:52, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Here's more from my earlier posts:
 
Quote

If the Pope is not afraid of denouncing abortion and birth control, which cause many secular people to laugh at or scorn him, why would he be afraid to be a YEC and say so openly?

FL needs to realize that a lie is a lie, no matter where it is found, even in the Bible itself. Science can find truth about the universe we live in and we can use that science to test the validity of any theology.

So with science we can throw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis, but keep the ethical teachings of Jesus. The assumption that we must accept the literal teachings of Genesis is nonsense. Jesus is not even mentioned there!

 
Quote
 

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH050.html
Claim CH050:
True science and true religion are founded on Genesis. All Biblical doctrines have their foundations laid there, and the book of Genesis itself is founded on the events of its first chapter.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1983. Creation is the foundation. Impact 126 (Dec.). http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=218
Response:
1. This claim is an instance of religious bigotry. Lots of religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism, and many more, have no connection with Genesis at all. For a person to say that these are not true religions is
A. a gross insult to the people who practice the religions. Many of these people are highly devout, with a spiritual relationship at least as great as any creationist.
B. a gross insult to God. The person is saying that God's revelation must coincide with his own opinion to be valid, that God cannot reveal himself differently to different people. Anyone making this claim places themself above God.
C. a disservice to oneself. Bigotry is hateful and will prevent good relationships with good people.


2. If Genesis is so all-important, why do creationists reject serious study of it? Modern (and even not-so-modern) scholarship has revealed much about the authors of Genesis (called J, E, P, and R) and other books of the Old Testament, including their motivations and places in history. For example, the Flood account is an interleaving of two different flood stories by J and P (Friedman 1987). Creationists studiously avoid any such knowledge. (Creationists are not alone in this; most Christians generally are woefully ignorant of biblical scholarship.)


3. Ideas in other parts of the Bible stand on their own. Creationists themselves frequently quote them out of context. The Old Testament itself refers to documents that no longer exist; the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); the Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18); and others (1 Kings 11:41; 14:29, 19, 16:5; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 20:34, 13:22). Knowledge of earlier scriptures is helpful but not critical. Jesus sometimes rejected the letter of some Old Testament laws, so the letter of the Old Testament cannot be too important, and Jesus exemplified the spirit. The reason creationists find Genesis so important is because they depend on it, not because other parts of the Bible depend on it.


4. If one believes that God created the earth and heavens, then surely the earth and heavens are God's primary work. Study of the earth and heavens should be foundational. Placing an object such as the Bible before them is idolatry.


5. No accepted science has ever been based on the Bible. That is not for lack of trying. Up to the nineteenth century, serious scientists tried to accomodate literal readings of the Bible to what they saw in nature. Young-earth creationism failed early on, so scientists tried gap creationism, day-age creationism, and other attempted reconciliations. But purely Bible-based science has always failed. True science is based on reality as expressed in the world (Young 1988).



 
Quote


http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101_1.html
Claim CH101.1:
If the Bible cannot be trusted on scientific and historical matters, then it cannot be trusted on matters of salvation and spirituality.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000. The vital importance of believing in recent creation. Back to Genesis 138 (June). http://www.icr.org/index.p....&ID=874
Response:
1. The Bible was not intended to teach matters of science and history. Therefore, those areas should not be held to standards of literal accuracy.


2. The general ideas in the Bible, such as salvation and God's majesty, do not rely on literalism for their communication. An error or contradiction in detail does not affect the overall message.


3. The claim is a non sequitur. That something is wrong in one area does not prevent it from being perfectly accurate in another.


4. Theologians through the ages have considered parts of the Bible suspect but accepted the rest as canon. In fact, it was exactly such a process by which canon was determined. Even Martin Luther considered some Old Testament passages suspect (Armstrong 1996; Engwer n.d.; Shea 1997).


5. A logical consequence of this claim is that the Bible cannot, in fact, be trusted, because parts of it (not only Genesis) are known to be wrong if interpreted literally.

6. Creationists themselves sometimes make claims that contradict the Bible. For example, Whitcomb and Morris (1961, 69) claimed, contrary to Genesis 7:21-23, that some land animals not aboard Noah's ark survived.



 
Quote


http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102_2_1.html
Claim CH102.2.1:
Jesus refers to creation and flood as though they were literal, which shows that those stories were, in fact, literal.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204,246,253-254.
Response:
Jesus's referring to traditional stories does not mean those stories were literal. People today refer to "the boy who cried wolf" and "blind men examining an elephant" and other stories the same way. Yet they do not consider those stories to be literally true. Their value, and the value of the stories Jesus refers to, is as stories, not as historical record.



 
Quote


http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102.html
Claim CH102:
The Bible should be read literally.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 204.
Response:
1. A literal reading of the Bible misses the meaning behind the details (Hyers 1983). It is like reading Aesop's Fables without trying to see the moral of the stories. Finding the meaning in a figurative reading requires more thought, but is thinking about the Bible a bad thing?


2. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Bible that cannot be resolved without excessive pseudological contortions unless one does not take them literally. Augustine said,
Quote  
It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn (Augustine 1982, 42-43).  

Augustine's warning has merit. The invalid "proofs" necessary to support antievolution, a global flood, and a young earth, and the contradictions implied by literalism have pushed people away from Christianity (Hildeman 2004; Morton n.d.).


3. There are several passages of the Bible itself that indicate that it should not be taken literally:
2 Corinthians 3:6 says of the new covenant, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
1 Corinthians 9:9-12 says that one of the laws of Moses is figurative, not literal.
Galatians 4:24 says that the story of Abraham is an allegory.
Jesus frequently taught in parables, with the obvious intention that the lesson from the story, not the details of the story, was what was important.


4. There is extensive tradition in Christianity, including Catholicism and Protestantism, of accepting nonliteral interpretations (Rogerson 1992). Biblical literalism is not a requirement; it is a fashion.


5. Reading the Bible requires consideration of the society in which and for which it was written. The pressing issue in Israel when Genesis 1 was written was monotheism versus polytheism. Genesis 1 is written to show that different aspects of nature -- light and dark, earth and sky, sun, moon, and stars, plants and animals -- do not have their separate gods but all fall under one God (Hyers 1983).


6. Nobody reads the Bible entirely literally anyway. For example, when God says, "into your hands they [all wild animals] are delivered" (Gen. 9:2), the phrase is obviously meant metaphorically.


7. Even reading the Bible literally requires interpretation. For example, what does "fountains of the deep" (Prov. 8:28) mean?


 
Quote

 
Quote
If the world is only a few thousand years old, why did God fake the ages of the rocks?

This illustrates the blasphemy of Young Earth Creationism (YEC). There is no evidence that God actually inspired the Bible, but it stands to reason that if any sort of God created the universe, we can learn about Him by studying His Creation. YECs claiming that we can learn more about God by studing some man-made book rather than something, the universe itself, that man could not have made is an absurdity, quite simply. Science depends on the physical and chemical laws being consistent over time and space, without exception. If that is not so, then reality itself becomes meaningless.


And that's the last of it. In truth, the only way you can prove evolution is incompatible with Christianity is to show where Jesus himself (not Paul, not Moses, not anyone else) denied that evolution ever happened and that the Earth MUST be only a few thousand years old. Why? Because the teachings of JESUS are supposed to be the foundation of Christianity, not the Book of Genesis or the writings of Paul!

Date: 2009/10/08 04:39:08, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,18:24)
Quote

Hey, I'd be the first to agree with you, even though I don't even know who these people are that you're referring to.   No joke.

But the fact is that, by your own admission, you have REJECTED their faith in Jesus Christ just as much as you've rejected mine, despite their stellar example which (you claim) impressed you so much.  The obvious question, is, um, whyyyyy.

See, here's the deal Ogre.  My guess is that, come Judgment Day, if you try to hide behind MY skirts and plead, "Hey God, That Rotten Fundie Floyd Is The Real Reason Why I Spat In Christ's Face", God might just say to you, "Yeah bro, I'm on your side, that Rotten Fundie Floyd is nothing but a Wackadoodle Mess with a Backwards Clergy Collar.  I feel your pain dude."

But see, God already knows that you met some "Amazing" Christians who apparently showed you all the good stuff I failed to show you here.  

So what lame-bunny excuse are you gonna hand God on J-Day when He replays the video of how THEY impressed you with their example and their faith?   You gonna blame THEM as well, for your rejection of Jesus Christ?

Nope.  You'll just stand there, full of guilt, unable even to look God in the eye, knowing that you blew it all the way, standing there watching the "DOWN" button flashing on your personal Elevator.

Now, please please don't misunderstand, I'm not jumping on you.   This is NO attack on you, for like I suggested, I rather liked the way you spoke.  It was helpful and helped me to better understand where you're comin' from.  

But.....your own words have rationally left you WITHOUT any rational (let alone religious) excuse as to why you've "rejected all religion", including your rejection of the religion of the non-Floydish Christians that you claim you were impressed by.  

(And please note:  our lives are short as Hell, according to the rock band "Shooting Star."  You and I ain't got time for incorrect spiritual choices, aye?)

So you may want to think things over a bit.  If you choose to respond to this assessment, I'm listening.

Floyd Lee    :)

I wonder how FloydLee would feel if he stood before God and He told FL that ISLAM was the only true religion. Or Judaism. Or Hinduism. Or any other faith than the Christian one.

My guess is that he would fall apart under the shock of having been lied to by, and lying to, others.

Whatever faith you profess, or even if you have none at all, you are taking a gamble.

Me, I have better things to do with my life than blindly assume that my faith makes me superior to anyone else's.

Date: 2009/10/11 06:44:25, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
I can't beleive this is still going on!

I thought I established that Christianity is based on JESUS and his teachings, NOT on some absurd assumptions about the literal meaning of the Genesis creation myths.

The Pope, head of the largest branch of Christianity, has affirmed that Catholics can beleive in evolution. Many members of other Christian denominations also affirm evolution. The only thing FL has established here is that evolution is not compatible with HIS extremist form of Christianity. That is all.

Date: 2010/12/30 02:41:53, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Is there anyone else who suspects that Kris and IBIG are either one and the same, or know each other directly? They have both been trolling in PT for some time and have operated almost like a wrestling tag team.

Date: 2011/01/05 01:28:23, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,16:15)
 
I do know that God exists...


No, you don't, so you just lied to everyone here. NO ONE knows that God exists.

Date: 2011/01/06 23:57:36, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:30)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 06 2011,21:28)
LOL!  Crazy, stupid, dickless little fuckweasel creotard iz teh funeez!   :D

wolfhound - we're going to exterminate you as well...

you are going to be a martyr for ATHEISM....

You do realize, you blasphemous nutcase, that you make your God look as crazy as you are.

Date: 2011/01/19 23:47:25, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 19 2011,23:22)
Yeah, IBelieve is too cowardly to come back.

He's too busy whining at me about how mean I am to point out that he's a boorish, lying asshole.

Well, he is certainly going bugshit back at the Panda's Thumb again.

http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-246067

Man, he is so stupid!!!!

Date: 2011/01/22 13:13:35, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!

Date: 2011/01/22 13:47:07, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 22 2011,13:31)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,14:13)
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!

Linky? Or perhaps quoted material, minus the number and name.

http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-244930

[Kris replied to comment from Dale Husband

Hmm, maybe I should give (wife's name) a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?]

(Kris posted a phone number that was later deleted by the PT admins.)

Oh, and the lunatic's favorite attack on me was:

{You’re a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one.}

A clear sign of mental illness.

Date: 2011/01/23 00:04:40, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,20:19)
Just a few things about the link and the "history": several posts at that link were not made by me, even though my name is on them. The history goes back further than that page.

Do you guys really want to see "psycho"? If so, take a good look at Dale's blog.

http://circleh.wordpress.com/

And then there's:

http://www.myspace.com/seeker_alpha

http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=112601330

http://www.opposingviews.com/users/dale-husband/comments_list

http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/dale-husband/muslims-get-life

http://twitter.com/Dale_Husband_HS

http://www.youtube.com/user/DaleHusband

http://www.iranian.com/main....thority

So I have a unique personality and opinions about lots of subjects. So fuking what?! I didn't know having a mind of my own instead of always nodding in total agreement with you was so offensive to you, Kris!

And of course, this is more proof that you HAVE been cyberstalking me.

Date: 2011/01/23 00:21:57, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Has Kris ever been banned from Pharyngula, the blog by P Z Myers? I found an entry at the long list of banned people that seems to be of Kris:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php

Quote

Mr G

Insipidity, trolling, wanking

Tiresome pseudo-intellectual who popped into a thread about the mind-body problem and started insisting…what? Nobody knows. He was darned sure his opinion was superior to everyone else's, but we couldn't get him to explain what his position was. Maybe a few years in the dungeon will give him time to organize his thoughts.


Because Kris will say he is not religious and not Creationist, but then attack us for not being tolerant and respectful enough of Creationists, claiming that this somehow damages the ability of the public to understand and appreciate science.

Quote

Concern trolling
A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.

Date: 2011/01/23 02:54:02, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,02:20)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 22 2011,22:04)
 
So I have a unique personality and opinions about lots of subjects. So fuking what?! I didn't know having a mind of my own instead of always nodding in total agreement with you was so offensive to you, Kris!

And of course, this is more proof that you HAVE been cyberstalking me.

Unique personality? That's hilarious Dale. You're a complete fucking loon.

By the way Mr. Paranoid, it took all of five minutes to look up those links. No "cyberstalking" was necessary.

You forgot the rest of your favorite insult at me.

"...and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one."

You mind must be slipping even faster than before.

Date: 2011/01/23 03:01:07, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,02:34)
Actually, I didn't make any reference to your wife, or at least not in the way you're implying. I asked you if she knows that you want to cheat on her. I didn't threaten to make crank calls to her either. I said, "Hmm, maybe I should give Cheri a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?" There's nothing "crank" about that. You're the one who says you have a desire for someone else on your blog and you're the one who says polyamory looks good to you.

Ya know Dale, if you're worried about your personal information, maybe you shouldn't spread it all over the internet. And if you're worried about your own words coming back to haunt you, maybe you shouldn't spread them all over the internet too.

By the way, You’re a complete fucking loon, a hypocrite, a bigot, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one.

Hey Kris, do you want to date my (Circle H) avatar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU

Uh, I thought you hated being called a liar. So why did you lie just now?

Date: 2011/01/23 03:08:43, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Well, at least I have consistent standards of honor and do my best to live up to them, no matter the cost.

You, on the other hand, seem to have NO standards whatsoever. All you ever have is hate for the rest of humanity.
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:03)
 
Aren't you the one who preaches tolerance and acceptance of, and friendship with, people from various groups?

"Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush. My friends include all kinds of people, such as conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Athiests, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Austrailians, meat-eaters and vegetarians. That diversity I deeply treasure."

Aren't those your words Dale? Were you lying when you typed them? If you're so friendly toward religious people, why do you constantly bash religious Creationists, religious ID-ists, Muslims, Christians, etc.?

Let's take a look at your claim about how "honorable" you are:

"An Honorable Skeptic

This is my ethical philosophy that I always express everywhere I may go.

I am a skeptic by nature.  I question everything I see, not taking what I am told at face value, but demanding proof, evidence, and corroborations before I accept something as true. Thus, when I am told by liberals that there was a conspiracy of American government officials involved in the terrorist attacks of 9-11, I am skeptical. If I am told by liberals that atrocities were committed in either Afganistan or Iraq by American forces against civilians, I am skeptical. If I am told by conservatives that tax cuts are a way to help the economy grow and that tax hikes hurt the economy, I am skeptical. If I am told by conservatives that the War in Iraq was justified even though no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found there even after being told before that they were there, I am VERY skeptical of that!!! When it comes to skepticism, I don’t discriminate politically! I doubt everything!

Another thing I am adamant about is my sense of honor, which I hold more dear to me than my life. It allows for no exceptions whatsoever. So if I have lost friends or even made enemies for standing up for my honor, so be it. If I see someone who comes across to me as a liar, a bully, or just plain rude and stupid, then I usually try to fight back. If I see someone doing or saying things that damage the credibility of the causes I happen to believe in, I deeply take offense at that because I want those causes to be protected, even at the expense of picking fights with those who are unworthy to support those causes. I beleive in absolute standards of right and wrong and so I see no point in ever excusing something that is wrong because the wrongdoer is otherwise a friendly or nice guy. That’s how corruption sets in.

Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush. My friends include all kinds of people, such as conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Athiests, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Austrailians, meat-eaters and vegetarians. That diversity I deeply treasure. Once I recognize that another soul is honorable, no matter what else may be true of that person, I embrace him as a brother. But if I discover a fellow American, a fellow agnostic, a fellow liberal, or a fellow chess player to be dishonorable in his behavior, he becomes my enemy, period. I distrust and shun him like I would a leper.

Because I am honorable, I sometimes willingly concede points made by my opponents in debates with them. This should never be seen as a sign of weakness. When I know I am right about something, I will fight like a pit bull to prove my case and defeat my opponent because in some cases I do see my battles here as a struggle between light and darkness, good and evil, ignorance and knowledge. But I am also willing at times to listen to my opponent and consider his point of view, especially if that person is known by me to be honorable. If we do not listen to others, how can we ever grow in knowledge?

No matter how great the pressure, I feel that one must never “sell out”. It is being able to stand up to the urge to conform to the shallow desires and priorites of others who have a limited vision that makes one truly heroic. I choose my friends according to my ideals; I never bend my ideals for the sake of keeping friends."

Your "ideals" are rooted in insanity, hypocrisy, dishonesty, malignant narcissism, and bigotry, and you're a legend in your own mind.

Oh, and I don't think your link to Pharyngula is about me. Better luck next time Mr. Dishonorable Wacko.

Date: 2011/01/23 03:22:04, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,03:17)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,09:13)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 23 2011,00:37)
I think it's time to stop with the insults, Kris. You said you wanted a reasonable discussion, and now you're back to your shenanigans because you can't face the fact of being wrong or seing your own flaws pointed out.

It's not even fun anymore, it's just boring...


Oh, so it's ok for you and other people to insult me over and over but it's not ok for me to insult anyone back. I'm expected to be reasonable but no one else is. I see.

You and some others here should look at your own flaws.

Be nice, it's my birthday!

And you will get insulted if you insult. Let's see who started insulting who on this thread... My! It seems it was you, in the very first post.

Want to start it all again without calling people hypocrites (and not being able to back up your claims)?

So Kris is saying if ONE person insults him ONCE, that gives him the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?

Because that's what he's been doing since mid-December.

Date: 2011/01/23 03:27:25, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:18)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,01:01)
 

Uh, I thought you hated being called a liar. So why did you lie just now?

I didn't lie about anything. You, on the other hand......

You said, "maybe I should give [Dale's wife] a call and let her know you want to cheat on her." That was indeed lying. You were lying to everyone else in PT and threatening to lie to her. I never said I wanted to cheat on her. You have a really strange mind to come to that conclusion after reading my blog entries on polyamory, prostitution, and statutory rape. I was discussing legal and philosophical matters, not personal desires, you @$$hole!

Date: 2011/01/23 03:47:05, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:38)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,01:22)
 
So Kris is saying if ONE person insults him ONCE, that gives him the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?

Because that's what he's been doing since mid-December.

You should quit while you're behind Dale, or you'll just get behind-er.

You really shouldn't try to put words in my mouth. Learn how to read and comprehend and then come back. See you in several years or so.

Actually, it's what you and some others started against me on Panda's Thumb back in December or whenever it was. The insulting that is. You and they just don't like taking your own medicine. Hypocrites.  

Are all creationists and/or ID-ists dishonorable to you Dale?

I will rephrase the question to make it direct.

Are you saying if ONE person insults you ONCE, that gives you the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?

Because I think it doesn't. The only real hypocrite all along is, was, and will be YOU as long as you keep up the phony concern troll act! It fools none of us.

Date: 2011/01/23 03:55:11, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,03:47)
Philosophical matters??   ROFLMAO!

Your 'philosophy' is really fucked up.

I suppose you would think that if you were a Christian fundamentalist, yes. Uh, didn't you say on other occasions you were not religious? More confusion and inconsistency from the concern troll.

Date: 2011/01/23 04:13:39, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote
Actually, it's what you and some others started against me on Panda's Thumb back in December or whenever it was. The insulting that is. You and they just don't like taking your own medicine. Hypocrites.


Hey, YOU invaded OUR space with your worthless crap, Kris! What the hell were you expecting? That we would simply say, "Hey, you are right, we should tolerate the Creationists' posting their misconceptions of evolution all over the Panda's Thumb."? No, of course not!

Any credibility you may have had was blown away by the arrival of  flowersfriend , a Christian fundamentalist who actually came to ask some good questions about science education. And what did you do to her?

http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-244226

{Kris replied to comment from flowersfriend

I’m curious about something and I would like to hear your feelings about it:

Why does “spirituality” have to include the fairy tales in the bible, like Noah’s Ark, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, 6,000 year old Earth, etc.? Ya see, that’s where most of the disagreement is between science and Christianity. Does the belief in a god/creator have to include the trappings of a prescribed ‘religion’?}

You are really full of shit!

Date: 2011/01/23 04:24:51, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
"Are you saying if ONE person insults you ONCE, that gives you the right to insult EVERYONE FOREVER?"

No.

Then why the hell do you do just that???

I have another question for you Dale. If one ID-ist or one creationist says something you don't like, or believes something you don't believe, does that give you the right to insult every ID-ist or every creationist forever?
No, and I do not insult all of them. Just the ones who are delusional enough to invade the Panda's Thumb and pick fights with us.

I have to admit that it's hard to comprehend just how mentally deranged you are Dale. Where you could possibly get the idea that I'm a "Christian fundamentalist" or religious in any way is beyond me. You're the one who is religious. You're the one who goes to church. You're the one with religious 'faith'. You're the one who proselytizes. You're the one who modified a variety of religious beliefs into your own version of your religious beliefs. You're the one who has and needs a religion based crutch.  
Do you hate me for being insulting to Creationist bigots or do you hate me for going to a Unitarian Universalist church? Your wild inconsistency is just breathtaking.

Date: 2011/01/23 08:57:47, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote

Hmm, I didn't realize that asking flowersfriend some questions in a nice, sincere way was such a bad thing.

 
You were being nice and sincere?!  I didn't think so.    
Quote


"OUR space"? "we"? Are you one of the owners of the Panda's Thumb website?

You say you don't paint the members of any group with the same brush and that you treasure the diversity of different people. You also say you have conservative, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim friends. Those people are all creationists, unless of course they have modified their belief system to accommodate the scientific theory of evolution, which also means that they're not really conservatives, Christians, Jews, or Muslims. I'm surprised that you have friends who have such contradictory belief systems. Why don't you think of them as dishonorable people? Is acceptance of the ToE your criteria for determining the honorable-ness of who may be worthy of being your friend?
What are you, FL in disguise? And since you obviously hate my standards, why continue to discuss them with you? Anything I say, you just throw it back at me with venom. That's what crazy people do.
 
Quote


Actually, I'm surprised that you have any friends at all. Frankly, I doubt that you do, for real.  


How many friends do you have?

Date: 2011/01/23 13:42:21, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote
I find it interesting that you think I'm "defending" religious people and creationists. That you and others think that way makes me realize that you're twisting what I actually say into something different than what I actually say because of your own biases.


Or maybe we are reacting the way we do because we have normal minds and find your inconsistency just incomprehensible.

   
Quote
Few to none of you seem to understand me. Of course you'll assume it must be my fault, but first take a look around this site. What do you see? I see a bunch of people with pretty much the same attitude about certain things they don't like. I also see a bunch of people with pretty much the same attitude about certain things they do like. In other words, clones.

Anything or anyone who doesn't fit into the belief system here is instantly and automatically attacked and treated as the enemy. They MUST be an evil creationist troll! Off with their head!

Hmm, that sounds just like the way some religions treat people who don't adhere to their belief system. In fact, it sounds a lot like Muslim extremists. Infidels! Off with their heads!


We have a community here with shared values, yes. But I don't recall anyone saying they wanted to execute people for being Creationist. What stupid hyperbole!

   
Quote
Think about it, and think about this too:

Everything said on this site, or on Panda's Thumb, or Pharyngula, etc., is available to read by anyone who wants to. When someone comes here and makes their first comment they likely have already read some or a lot of the stuff said here. Just because that person is new to you doesn't mean they're new to the site. What you people say here may make some people happy but it may also incite some people to respond in a way that you won't like.

Try putting a billboard in your front yard with something controversial or insulting on it. See what happens when your neighbors and the community see it or hear of it. Don't be surprised when some people respond in a way you don't like. This site is more accessible to more people than your front yard.


You are merely stating the blatantly obvious. That's called empty rhetoric.

   
Quote
Ya know, if I were a creationist troll, as I've been accused of being, it would be real easy to cause all kinds of malicious trouble here. You people are so easy to figure out and you're very predictable.


You mean you'd be even WORSE than you are now?

   
Quote
In case you're wondering, I'm not a worshiper of science or religion. I like science, good science that is, a lot, but I don't see it as something to worship or believe 'in'. I'm practical and skeptical but I'm also open minded about some things. To me, being skeptical isn't just about religion. It's about science too and maybe even more so than religion. Religion is mostly pretty easy to figure out and it usually doesn't change much or very quickly. Science is a lot more complicated than religion and there are a lot of new claims and/or changes on a daily basis. Nature is a lot more complicated than science, so I'm skeptical about any claim science makes about nature. I don't just automatically believe anything or everything some scientist says, no matter who they are.

It's because I like science that it pisses me off when it's done badly. Some of the shit in science should never happen and I wish more scientists were more concerned with cleaning up the messes in science than they are in fighting against religion. If science were strong enough, and made more accessible, understandable, interesting, and enjoyable to the masses, religious zealots wouldn't be as big a problem.


Gee, you say all the right things, but your track record shows that you pick fights over the silliest things, like whether or not certain woodpeckers are extinct. Why not talk about really important issues like the misuse of science for military purposes?

I have written about the importance of peer review and skepticism in science.  It's standard procedure among scientists, including those who study evolution. You seem to think we believe the opposite, which is a falsehood.

Natural selection and the scientific peer review process.

So what the hell are you griping about???


   
Quote
Just one thing I'd really like to see:

TV stations/networks with good science and nature shows on 24/7, on free TV (not just cable or satellite) in as many countries, states, and cities as possible. Some of the shows could be aimed at children, in the appropriate time slots. Religious zealots have some of their shows on 24/7 on free TV (and on cable and satellite). Why can't science do the same thing? To reach a bigger audience requires a bigger effort.



Nice. So why aren't you working harder for that instead of bitching so much at us?

Date: 2011/01/23 14:20:26, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,17:53)
At Weasel Zippers

I gotta believe PZ posts this kind of shit for attention...I can't believe anyone can actually be as vile as he is.  But, then even posting it for attention is sick beyond belief.

"meat".....good Lord, he needs his head examined.  On the bright side though, from what I've read, Skatje has somewhat changed her stance on abortion. From hard core leftist thinking to actually having a heart about the issue.  Yeah for Skatje!  Maybe she should have left the nest a long time ago.

This, coming from someone who, along with Salvador Cordova, libeled Skatje by claiming she was promoting beastiality on her blog, when she was merely making a legal argument about why it should not be illegal. Having been libeled by a troll called Kris for similar reasons, I have absolutely no respect for your attitude, FTK. Your thinking the worst of people who have different values from you is just blind bigotry.

Date: 2011/01/23 14:31:02, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 21 2011,18:48)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,16:01)
I can't go tell PZ, Rich, he banned my ass years ago.  He doesn't allow dissent.

The first sentence is true.  The second sentence is so obviously false that anyone with a working conscience must blush to see the accusation made: the troll was invited to leave for being trollish, not merely for dissenting.  (Hint: there are practicing Xians who have earned the OM designation, some of whom have been known to tell Dr. Myers that he's full of it.  Funny how they haven't been hit with the banhammer yet.)

So, FTK, since you seem to think that abortion is a bad thing, what mandatory minimum sentence would you embrace for women seeking to terminate problematic pregnancies?

You, Biggy, what's the difference?


The MadPanda, FCD

It seems that the issue for anti-abortion fanatics is that they see premarital sex as a sin and thus things like pregnancy and STDs for unmarried girls and women are a punishment for those who sin.

That, in my opinion, degrades the value of children as much as abortion does.

Date: 2011/01/23 17:49:55, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,17:46)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2011,17:43)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:41)
You know what, Stanton, in '09 in Kansas alone, there were approx. 9,500 abortions.  I'm finding it very hard to believe that the mother/and or children were all in jeopardy due to child birth. "Therapeutic" can mean virtually anything.

It can mean I'll kill myself if I can't get it removed.

With counseling for the emotional state, it could be removed through natural birth and placed with another family would could better care for it.  9 months isn't a lifetime.

Gee, your idiocy and lack of empathy for pregnant women, especially rape and incest victims, just becomes all the more obvious.

Date: 2011/01/23 19:07:24, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,18:05)
You know what?  My aunt (actually my cousin) was the result of what occured due to rape.  My grandmother raised my aunt's daughter as her own.  

She is a wonderful person...is always helping others.  She lives by Mayo hospital and before my Dad passed away, she let us use her home for whatever we needed on our trips back and forth to Mayo.  She does that for many people since she lives so close to the hospital.  

I can't say enough good things about this woman.  I think about all the people who would not have received her love and kindness if her mother had opted to abort her due to a horrible incident such as rape.  Rape doesn't make the child a horrible person by any means, and it didn't ruin my aunt's life to have her.

So on the basis of that one example, you assume that all rape victims who get pregnant can have their babies and then live happily ever after?

If you aunt had a choice, and choose to have the baby, that was her right. It is not for you or some government to tell her she can't have an abortion if she feels she can't deal with the emotional trauma of a pregnancy. That's violating the dignity of the woman TWICE! It is the height of absurdity to put the supposed right to life of a fetus above the right to bodily autonomy of someone who is already born and able to make decisions for herself.

And stop the Godbotting! This isn't about what God would want (no one knows that) or what he would forgive. This is about what federal law, including the U S Constitution itself, allows. It says that "All persons BORN or naturalized....", not conceived in the United States, are citizens. And it is citizens whose rights are protected, not those who are not yet citizens.

Date: 2011/01/23 21:17:39, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Nice way of being slippery. I don't argue for abortion rights because of nontheism, but on the basis of secular Constitutional law. Why can't you argue against abortion rights based on secular Constitutional law, instead of throwing the Bible and Christianity at us? And don't repeat that BIG LIE that the United States was founded on Biblical or Christian values. It wasn't, or we would still be under a king who would be considered to rule by Divine Right, instead of under a republican government by the consent of the people.

Besides, you cannot use the Bible to promote anti-abortion views, when there is at least one passage in it that actually calls for the killing of babies. This one:

http://bible.cc/psalms/137-9.htm

Psalm 137:9

"Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"

And it doesn't matter the context in which that vile passage was written, because if you really objected to the termination of pregnancies by choice, you'd object to that too. But do you?

The claim that the Bible condemns the modern issue of abortion is one of the biggest lies the Religious Right has told, period.

   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,19:19)
   
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,19:07)

So on the basis of that one example, you assume that all rape victims who get pregnant can have their babies and then live happily ever after?

If you aunt had a choice, and choose to have the baby, that was her right. It is not for you or some government to tell her she can't have an abortion if she feels she can't deal with the emotional trauma of a pregnancy. That's violating the dignity of the woman TWICE! It is the height of absurdity to put the supposed right to life of a fetus above the right to bodily autonomy of someone who is already born and able to make decisions for herself.

And stop the Godbotting! This isn't about what God would want (no one knows that) or what he would forgive. This is about what federal law, including the U S Constitution itself, allows. It says that "All persons BORN or naturalized....", not conceived in the United States, are citizens. And it is citizens whose rights are protected, not those who are not yet citizens.


sigh....Im not making the choice for anyone.  I'm merely sharing my views.  And, no, I won't stop the "Godbotting"...it's who I am.  Just like you share your viewpoints from your perspective or worldview.

Date: 2011/01/23 21:49:02, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,21:30)
Just for future reference, I've spent a lifetime listening to arguments that go against my biblical POV.  In the past 10 years alone, I believe I've probably heard them all.  But, feel free to further enlighten me, just as I'll throw the ball right back at ya...:)

Closed minded bigots like yourself, FL, and IBeleiveInGod constantly judge issues in religion by a double standard; those who say what you already beleive must be right, while those who contradict those beliefs must be wrong. Have you ever heard of judging issues in ANY subject by objective reality? That's the ONLY way to discover consistent truth. If there is a God and he created the universe, then the only way to know him is to study his creation. NOT read some man-made book that is called the Word of God. There is no such thing, because critical analysis has debunked the notions about such a thing. But phony Biblical apologists keep lying to their flock about the issues and idiots like you keep lapping up their baseless crap.

Date: 2011/01/23 22:18:21, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:01)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,21:49)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,21:30)
Just for future reference, I've spent a lifetime listening to arguments that go against my biblical POV.  In the past 10 years alone, I believe I've probably heard them all.  But, feel free to further enlighten me, just as I'll throw the ball right back at ya...:)

Closed minded bigots like yourself, FL, and IBeleiveInGod constantly judge issues in religion by a double standard; those who say what you already beleive must be right, while those who contradict those beliefs must be wrong. Have you ever heard of judging issues in ANY subject by objective reality? That's the ONLY way to discover consistent truth. If there is a God and he created the universe, then the only way to know him is to study his creation. NOT read some man-made book that is called the Word of God. There is no such thing, because critical analysis has debunked the notions about such a thing. But phony Biblical apologists keep lying to their flock about the issues and idiots like you keep lapping up their baseless crap.

Dale,

Don't you think that statements like you just made are exactly the kind of statements that you deem bigoted and judgemental coming from myself, FL, etc.?  Can't u see that?  You, yourself, are telling me the "ONLY" way to discover objective truth.  

Think about that for a little bit.

No, of course not. If you are saying that there is no objective truth, then why push the Bible on anyone at all? It's just another book, right? No, you think it's the Word of God, so you are claiming a source of absolute truth. Except in my case, I know that man made all the Bibles in the world, while man could not possibly have made the universe itself we live in. That's the difference between science and extremist religion like yours.

It's that sort of dishonest "you too" bull$#it that cuts off rational discussion and makes you look stupid. You and Kris the Krazy need to get a room together.

Date: 2011/01/23 22:32:48, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote
Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?

Considering the profound differences between Hinduism and Biblical religions, that seems unlikely. Some Hindus worship idols and are polytheistic, which the Bible vehemently denounces.

     
Quote


Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."


Where did you read that? And we can bring up anything we want to here. So can you. Just don't be surprized if the resulting feedback is negative when you spit out bullcrap.

     
Quote


Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*



Because that's not true. We don't necessarily attack Christianity itself, only Christians who are delusional about what science is or should be.

Date: 2011/01/23 22:39:43, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
[quote=Ftk,Jan. 23 2011,22:29][/quote]
Quote

Dale you just told me that there is only ONE WAY to discover consistent truth.  Then you turn around and tell me that I cannot believe that I have found truth in God and His word.  

So, why the double standard?


Why are you lying outright about me having a double standard? You are so full of it it's not even funny! If your only response to me is to lie about what I said and meant, no wonder P Z Myers banned you from Pharyngula! I would have too!

Date: 2011/01/23 22:43:14, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:38)
What sentence?  Umm....none?  I think I've stated several times that I have no opinion as to the legality of abortion.  I prefer to keep government out of it.  Education, counseling and support should be a priority here, not a sentence of some sort for those who chose abortion.

Are you saying you are actually pro-choice?! Then your whole argument falls apart. If you really thought abortion was an objective moral issue, you would seek to get the government involved in enforcing your values. If not.....

Date: 2011/01/23 22:54:16, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:44)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,22:39)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:29)

     
Quote

Dale you just told me that there is only ONE WAY to discover consistent truth.  Then you turn around and tell me that I cannot believe that I have found truth in God and His word.  

So, why the double standard?


Why are you lying outright about me having a double standard? You are so full of it it's not even funny! If your only response to me is to lie about what I said and meant, no wonder P Z Myers banned you from Pharyngula! I would have too!

Hmmm....maybe you're not understanding what I'm getting at.  I'll try to think of another way to phrase it.  If anyone else gets what I'm saying, maybe you can help me explain it to Dale.  If none of you get it...lol...I guess Im screwed.

Oh, I get exactly what you were saying, FTK. You  beleive that your faith in the Bible (a man-made book) should be put on the same level as a scientist's trust in the results of modern science (which involves studying the universe, things within it, and the physical and chemical laws that govern them, which only God could have made).

No, you are wrong. Indeed, you are an idiot! If reality contradicts the Bible, a true beleiver in God would conclude that the Bible is NOT the Word of God and seek knowledge of God from science alone. Do you? Appearantly not! Putting your religious faith in something man-made, and calling that thing God-made instead, is idolatry and blasphemy.

Date: 2011/01/23 23:25:56, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,22:58)
"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's."  

Christ never said anything about a worldly government take over.  His ministry was ultimately about truth, love and eternal life.  That means that a "Christian nation" is not a necessity for me.  My beliefs that lead me to vote according to God's will is NOT because I want to shove my views down someone elses throat or make them live a particular way.  I'll vote the way for what I think is best accordingly to my worldview just as you will for yours.  It's dangerous having a particular religion having ultimate control....I have no problem with separation of Church and State unless it's taken so far from context that the Church doesn't have the same rights as everyone else.  Furthermore, if a "Christian Nation" was established, what form of "Christianity" would that be???  

I can state my opinions and vote according to my biblical beliefs.  But, if the majority vote is against my POV, so be it.

Here are a couple of things I have written about abortion. See what you think:

 
Quote


http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/627284

Anti-abortion arguments that are RATIONAL

There are several reasons why abortion should be outlawed, or at least severely restricted:

1. It is an act of violence.  Many people oppose war and the death penalty because they destroy human life, and oppose hunting for sport because it destroys animal life wantonly. How can humans unborn be given less consideration than animals?

1. It encourages a throw-away attitude.  If we are opposed to littering and want more people to recycle bottles and paper, why throw away unborn children?
3. It leaves many couples who can't have children with fewer opportunities to adopt.    Experience indicates that people who are parents, whether by birth or adoption, tend to be more disciplined themselves, because they have to teach their own children how to behave.

4. It would force people to be more disciplined in their sex lives.  Knowing that abortion would not be an option would make many people think twice about having sex without using protection.

5. My wife has disabilities from birth.  If she had been aborted, I probably wouldn't be married now.

We need to get RELIGION out of the abortion debate. To oppose birth control and insist on abstinence is hypocrisy and reason enough to shut down the Catholic Church. The sex drive in some organisms, and perhaps in some people, is even stronger than the instinct for self-preservation. Natural selection made sure of that!

To lessen the number of abortions we need to do the following:

1. More sex education in the schools.   Those who claim that such education encourages more sexual activity put the cart before the horse. I know from experience that abstinence pledges simply do not work. Period!

2. Better and more readily available birth control methods.   Even condoms often fail, so they should be deemphasized in favor of the pill or even sterilization. And sterilization should be offered for FREE at most hospitals.

3. STOP ALL ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS!  Discredit them publicly with the facts.


See why I demanded you stop the Godbotting? It doesn't work, except to show and spread irrational prejudice instead of promoting objective reason.

 
Quote

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/967727

Abortion rights and fetal personhood


This blog is made to address the question of: "When can the personhood of a developing embryo or fetus be legally defined?"

And before we can do that, we must also define what a "person" is.

What makes a person, as opposed to a mere ball of cells or even a fully developed animal? Of course, if you are an animal rights activist, you will also claim that even most animals have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but since animals in nature constantly kill and eat each other, and since we are talking about a legal matter applicable only to humans, let's assume that argument does not apply and that we are only talking about humans and what makes them different from all other animals.

Certainly, if we judge personhood by genetics, we'd have to conceed the point that a human being is a unique individual from conception onward. But that does not define personhood, because skin cells or blood shed from a human also have unique genetic characteristics, which is what makes DNA testing possible. Yet they are in most cases no longer even alive. A person is the totality of his body, not just its individual cells.

Having disposed of the animals rights issue and the genetics issue, let us focus on the one thing that truly separates humans from other animals: their brains.

Of course, whales and elephants have brains far bigger than humans, but they also have larger bodies. Indeed, human brain to body proportions are much greater than any other animals species.

But what really makes human brains special is not just their size, but their cerebral cortexes. So it would be reasonable to conclude than when the cerebral cortex has reached a certain level of development in the human fetus, then we can say that fetus has reached a level of personhood and should now be legally protected.

When is this? Let's look at the actual data:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/dev.html

It would appear that the brain of an embryo/fetus starts to develop its cerebral cortex at 11 weeks and the process is nearly complete at 8 months, long after the fetus has reached the physical level of viability (able to survive outside the womb).

But appearances can be misleading. For the next step in our research, we should look into brain wave patterns in embryos or fetuses.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm

26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time.

That's it! From a strictly scientific and logical perspective, fetal personhood may be legally defined as starting at 26 weeks. However,

22 weeks or 5 months: 12" long and weighing about a pound, the fetus has hair on its head. Its movements can be felt. An abortion is usually unavailable at this gestational age because of state and province medical society regulations, except under very unusual circumstances. Half-way through the 22nd week, the fetus' lungs may be developed to the point where it would have a miniscule chance to live on its own. State laws and medical association regulations generally outlaw almost all abortions beyond 20 or 21 weeks gestation. "A baby born during the 22nd week has a 14.8 percent chance of survival. And about half of these survivors are brain-damaged, either by lack of oxygen (from poor initial respiration) or too much oxygen (from the ventilator). Neonatologists predict that no baby will ever be viable before the 22nd week, because before then the lungs are not fully formed." 4 Of course, if someone develops an artificial womb, then this limit could change suddenly.


So we might play it safe and push back a legal definition of personhood to 22 weeks, to avoid the possibility of aborting a viable fetus. Ban abortion after that, but allow it before that.


This is a perfect example of using science and reason to address a hot issue, not religion!

Date: 2011/01/23 23:38:23, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote

I'm sure you've been given an abundant amount of evidence and rejected it all.

What evidence? That's a cop-out.
 
Quote


 I honestly don't understand how people can be so divided on the subject.  The only thing I can come up with is what appears more and more all the time to be correct.  You either have the holy spirit in your heart or you don't.  You either see or you don't.  It's the only explantion I can find to understand how what I know to be true (and proven with little doubt) is so completely rejected and misunderstood by some.

Your assertions, like those of the Bible, are not evidence for anything.
 
Quote

Yes, call me delusional, conceited, bigoted, etc., etc.,.  I really don't mind anymore.  I know there is a God...it's abundantly clear and why some don't see that.....it's a mystery. I know I don't have everything right, but there is a God and there is a reason for us being where and who we are.  And, I won't apologize for the sermon.

You are delusional, not merely for beleiving in a God, but for claiming that you "know" there is one! The sheer arrogance you have is incredible.

 
Quote
There you are doing the same thing as Dale.  If it was only the 'believer's' side of the line that was claiming their way is the only way, and that they are the only ones "tearing others apart" we wouldn't have any arguments, would we?  Do none of you get that?  Can't you see that both sides are pushing for their own beliefs and, agendas and worldview?  *Both* sides tear at each other.  We need to all stop with the anger, quit being so defensive and try to understand each other rather than play the blame game.


Uh, since we are pro-CHOICE, not insisting that people have an abortion because we want them to, you just lied again!

Date: 2011/01/23 23:45:42, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 23 2011,23:37)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,23:21)
There you are doing the same thing as Dale.  If it was only the 'believer's' side of the line that was claiming their way is the only way, and that they are the only ones "tearing others apart" we wouldn't have any arguments, would we?  Do none of you get that?  Can't you see that both sides are pushing for their own beliefs and, agendas and worldview?  *Both* sides tear at each other.  We need to all stop with the anger, quit being so defensive and try to understand each other rather than play the blame game.

That's a false equivalence, at best.  Even if I were to grant you the NOMA, which I don't, only one side actually has practical support.

There is this thing called reality.  It does not go away when you decide to stop believing in it.  It is also a harsh mistress and a firm taskmaster (if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor).

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to present evidence.  Not anecdote, not testimony, not quote scripture, not assertions...evidence.

What part of that are you not willing to understand?


The MadPanda, FCD

Right, and not that book full of crap titled "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by professional con-artist and all around idiot Josh McDowell. REAL evidence, FTK! Something that cannot be debunked by reality!

Date: 2011/01/23 23:52:01, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,23:43)
Dale,

I believe I made almost all those same points in our previous discussions-no God botting necessary.  You were the one that brought up crimes against Jesus or whatever it was you said, and I told you that Jesus had nothing to do with it.  

Ultimately, you believe the same things the I do as well as what the Bible teaches.  That sucks, eh?  You're arguing with me for no reason other than you can't stand the thought of holding to anything biblical.

Did you not see the quote I gave from Psalms about killing babies? Go back and read that!

What I can't stand is dishonesty and stupidity, period.

Date: 2011/01/24 00:16:59, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,00:02)
(* The doctrine of the Trinity is rather amusing, or would be if not for all the blood spilled over it across the years.)

I'm a Unitarian Universalist. That means I don't beleive in the Trinity, I don't believe in eternal hell, and I insist on judging all religious claims by reason. Most of them don't pass the test. If there is a God, he cannot be seen, so assuming he must exist and calling that a fact is as delusional as it gets. But to be fair, I do not deny God's existence and thus would not call God anyone's imaginary friend. The Biblical vision of God is certainly bogus, though!

Date: 2011/01/24 02:30:33, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote

Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.

That is totally backwards. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is credible. It is also possible that Jupiter harbors life, but until we find actual life forms there, we can't teach about life on Jupiter in science classes as anything other than hypothetical speculation. At least we know Jupiter exists and what it is made of, including organic molecules. ID is not even at that level, since without identifying the Designer or the process he used to design life, ID is unscientific.
   
Quote


I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.

Right, so you could stop right there.
   
Quote


I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.

Yet you seem so sure we must be on the wrong track for dismissing ID.
   
Quote


It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.

Again, you sound reasonable, but your slamming us for attacking Creationism and ID when we have found no reason to conclude there must be a Designer of any kind is profoundly unreasonable. Piss off!
   
Quote


To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.

If you are so open minded, why are you so sure that people investigating the possibility of a species of woodpecker not yet being extinct must be frauds?
   
Quote


I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.

I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.

Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and  giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.

Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.

It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.

When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.


WTF is wrong with you??? Your inconsistency just keeps getting more outlandish at every turn! The ONLY way to deal with the religious wackos and defend science is to fight them the way we've been doing it! That's what we have learned from decades of experience, and we don't need a loon from out of nowhere telling us otherwise. You haven't been there when we fought Creationists and ID promoters, investigated them, exposed their lies and fallacies, and defeated them in court and in testing their claims. You know NOTHING about what it take to attract people to science, because you make no effort yourself!

Carl Sagan was one of the greatest popularizers of science in the 20th Century, as well as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould. All non-theists, all staunch evolutionists. And none of them as wacked out as YOU!

Date: 2011/01/24 03:11:37, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,03:03)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:59)
Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Your confident debating skills are really shining through now Kris. It must be a struggle being so much more erudite then the average person.

Why don't you call him a shithead next?

IOW you are not that different from Joe G, you might know a few more words them him but at the core you are essentially the same person.

Kris forgot once more to hurl his favorite insult at me:

"You’re a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one."

Date: 2011/01/24 19:41:12, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,05:03)
Dale, your responses are so far off track and so irrelevant to what I said that they're not worth responding to, except by saying this:

You're a moron.

Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Calling Dale a shithead would be an insult to shit.

You could have just said nothing at all and been just as meaningful. Clearly, you cannot answer me properly once I have dissected and blown away your bogus arguments.

Date: 2011/01/24 20:05:52, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Kris said
Quote
It seems to me that if science were strong enough and popular enough, religious zealots wouldn't be much of a problem. I think that pushy religious zealots should be fought in court or in the media or politics, in the most effective way possible, but I also think that science should and could do a lot more to make itself trustworthy, accessible, interesting, understandable, honest, and popular.


What a delusion that is! Just like some (perhaps all) of religion itself is a delusion! Delusions by definition cannot be overcome by facts alone, but only by a  transformation of a human mind.

Science does well enough as it is. Concern trolls like Kris are liars, period.

Date: 2011/01/24 22:47:48, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Look who just showed up with another account:

"Antievolution.org Discussion Board welcomes our newest member drmabusa2020 making a total of 11183 registered members."

Looks like we may have David Mabus buzzing us like a mosquito for some time to come.

Date: 2011/01/24 22:56:06, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,22:47)
"But nobody here bashes the IDists/creationists that act with civility. At best, we bash the stupidity they are spewing, but not the guys themselves."

Yeah, right. You've got to be kidding.


"But when they become uncivil, or clearly irrational (IBIG, Floyd Lee, JoeG...) because cornered and unable to answer to simple questions, then we start bashing them. Why would we do otherwise when they come here and crap all over the carpet?"

You should look at a mirror when you say "uncivil, or clearly irrational". And you guys are real good at crapping on your own carpet. This site is craptastic.

You just lied outright for the bazillionth time. Or did you forget once more about flowersfriend? You need treatment for that memory problem of yours.

And how many times must you be told that "tu quoque" is not a credible argument? We are acting consistently with our standards of logic and truth, which you reject. It is not hypocrisy to live up to what we stand for, just because you dislike it. In our minds, you, and the Creationists you defend, get no less than what they deserve, always and forever. Get over it!

Date: 2011/01/25 00:08:14, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote

I was nice to flowersfriend and simply asked her some questions.

Yeah, just like you have been "nice" to all of us. I could foresee where you were going with those questions and moved to stop you before you could esculate the situation and drive flowersfriend away from PT in disgust. And I'd do it again.
   
Quote

You are one sick, pompous motherfucker, Dale-boi. Take your hypocritical, dishonest "standards" and shove them up your tu quoque.

Thank you.
   
Quote

We, our, us; do you ever just speak for yourself you gutless punk? Does your gang mentality make you feel like a big man?

How big do you think you are?
   
Quote

You better get back to your padded cell before the guys in white suits find you.

Insanity such as yours cannot be covered up by calling others crazy.

   
Quote

Look who's talking about projection, and being obsessed and quick to insult.

The hypocrisy here is mind boggling.

Credibility? You don't have a clue about credibility.

Again, we thank you for the pointless outburst. Because that is all you got.

Date: 2011/01/25 00:16:17, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:11)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 23 2011,06:17)
   
Quote
Any lurkers/non-lurkers taking Kris seriously


bwaahahahahahaha

ahaha

No.

fuck off and die kris.  you aren't even an interesting piece of shit

And I'm the one accused of being quick to insult??

Hey Dale-boi, why aren't you giving erasmouth shit for being so insulting and threatening? I mean, you've got all those "standards", right? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey erasmush, does FCD stand for Fuckfaced Cocksucking Dickhead or Fartbreathing Cuckold Dipshit? Just wondering.

Becuase you started it and only you can end it by never insulting anyone here again. But I know you won't. Instead, you will lie to everyone by claiming you are just throwing our shit back at us, which, even if true, only reduces you to the same level you claim we are at. Our "hypocrisy" is also yours and always has been.

Date: 2011/01/25 00:27:23, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Lest we forget how this started, with Kris equating free speech with a chaotic atmosphere in which rational discussion becomes impossible because trolls like him are able to come and go as they please. But while Kris was banned from PT, other Creationist bigots like FL and Robert Byers have not been. Kris got banned only when he posted my phone number and said he wanted to crank call my wife and tell her a lie about me.
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,21:35)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2011,10:32)
The Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Views" blog is taking a step into uncharted territory. They are permitting comments. Moderated, of course.

     
Quote

In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will
not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.


This thread should be used to cache copies of comments left at EN&V, so that we can calibrate just how much dissent the DI is willing to publish.

Wesley, your MASSIVE hypocrisy is showing, and so is that of your sycophants. You posted your incredibly hypocritical remarks on Panda's Thumb, even though Panda's Thumb censors and moderates comments, and bans people who "dissent".

It is astounding to me that you won't see that you condone the exact thing that you're bitching about. The DI may be run by hypocritical people but you've got no room to condemn them unless you advocate completely open, free speech here and on Panda's Thumb, and everywhere else.

How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??

Date: 2011/01/25 00:31:41, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris distorting the truth @ Jan. 25 2011,00:25)
It's interesting that you're accusing me of being insulting or mean to flowersfriend, even though I wasn't, but the fact that some other people did give her a bad time apparently doesn't bother you. Why aren't you bitching at those people Dale-boi? I thought you said you have standards that never waver. Pfft.

In fact, once most of us realized that flowersfriend wasn't a fanatical bigot like FL or IBIG, things cooled down and she even returned later for more pleasant conversation. So once more, you have been dishonest. And to her credit, she totally ignored you, and thus disaster was averted.

Date: 2011/01/25 00:35:48, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:30)
Lest "we" forget, you are a lying nutcase.

State one lie I have EVER told about you, Kris. Just one. And please give us an example of us being hypocritical to you or anyone else here. Just one. Because merely calling me and others here hypocrites, liars or insane means nothing without evidence.

Date: 2011/01/25 01:29:31, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
To illustrate for all to see how Kris slowly degenerated into the lunatic we know him to be now, let's look back at Panda's Thumb nearly two months ago.

http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240311

 
Quote

Kris replied to comment from Lamar | December 3, 2010 9:40 PM

I think it’s reasonable to say that a scientific theory may be intended as a rejection of, or disagreement with, a religious belief. But, it’s also reasonable to say that many scientific theories are put forth without considering religious beliefs at all.
<snip>
In the commonly accepted sense I don’t think that faith in science is “religious”. However, I do believe that scientists and many laymen do have faith in science. I have faith in science but not to the extent that I automatically and unquestionably swallow whatever science cooks up.


http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240354

 
Quote

harold | December 4, 2010 10:08 AM
Kris -

You seem to take an interest in the discussion here, but you also seem to lack some background information about science and creationism.

Everyone makes mistakes and has things to learn. I have made plenty of mis-statements here and in other places. When someone points it out, I learn.

I’m going to give you a chance to do that right now.

Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.

There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs.

I noticed in my youth that I do instinctively hold certain assumptions. I assume the physical world exists, I assume my senses detect aspects of it, I assume other human beings exist, I assume that their senses detect aspects of the same physical world, and I assume that the axioms of logic, although having no physical existence themselves, should be used in evaluating physical reality. Therefore I prefer the scientific method for evaluating physical reality.

Scientific claims should always be viewed critically, with skepticism. No-one should “swallow whatever science cooks up”. To do so would be, in fact, unscientific. Sometimes scientific ideas initially get too much credit, because they are advanced by a prestigious source or seem especially exciting. But this is a mistake.

Having said that, please specifically explain which scientific observations, hypotheses, experimental results, or theories you dispute, and why.


http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240429

 
Quote

Harold, your responses have little or nothing to do with what I said.

Just one example: I was referring to the simplicity of the phrase “evolved from matter” in the sense that the phrase isn’t explanatory enough to necessarily describe how “evolutionists” (or any scientists for that matter) may feel about how the universe began. I was not referring to the concept or theory of evolution itself.

I think that Lamar’s comments are worth some consideration, as he stated them, and I tried not to read things into them that are not there. You might try to do the same with my comments.


Later....

http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241116

 
Quote

Kris | December 11, 2010 1:22 AM

harold said:

“There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs.”

Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?


http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241117

 
Quote

Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 1:42 AM

Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?

no, he need not. It’s an absolutely accurate statement.

I think you might be confusing the intent and content of a scientific theory with whether or not the results of testing that theory provide evidence that contradict specific claims made of religions.

Evolutionary theory does not, and is not intended to, address any religious statement.

We have, however, in testing the theory over decades, found that many specific religious claims are unsupported.

likewise with relativity theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentrism, etc, etc, etc.

your understanding of science seems relatively poor to be trying to play “gotchya” games.


http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241121

 
Quote

Kris replied to comment from Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 2:52 AM

It’s not a game, and you’re not Harold, or are you?

Just to be accurate, which one of Harold’s statements (that I quoted) are you referring to?


http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241123

 
Quote

Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 6:22 AM | Edit

one, this quite obviously IS a game to you, and has been since you first started posting here.

two, you don’t get to control who responds to your posts.

three, it was quite clear to anyone with half a brain exactly what I was responding to, based on what I posted.

man, the nutters here are getting too damn thick.


You may read the rest of that thread, but I posted these bits here to show where I think the trouble with Kris got started.

BTW, I thought Harold's statement "There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs." was indeed obviously true. When Kris challenged it, I was astonished and also wondered what the hell he was doing. Soon, we all found out!

Date: 2011/01/25 01:45:42, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
[quote=Kris,Jan. 25 2011,01:34][/quote]
Quote
If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?

The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing.

As to your second question, it is baseless. Most people in modern industrial society support science AND believe in at least some religious myths. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing.

Quote

I see that it hasn't occurred to you that facts, if presented effectively, could cause or at least encourage the transformation of a human mind.


To those who are open-minded and not delusional, yes. But many people are not like that.

Got any more stupid questions?

Date: 2011/01/25 02:14:10, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,02:01)
Oh my FSM! He is a complete douche!

Well Kris, I've tried to be nice, polite, civil, so now I'm going for the other option:

Kris, go fuck yourself with a jackhammer!

Thanks.

Hugs.

I'd rather see Kris get hit with P Z Myers' Banhammer. Much more phunny, that.

Date: 2011/01/25 03:22:06, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,02:56)
 
"The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing."

Hogwash. Even if science were perfect in every way it wouldn't mean much if few people know about it, care about it, or trust it. The more the masses know about, care about, and trust science, the less effective religious zealots would be in politics, the education system, or any other aspect of life.
Exactly. Strange, that you state the blatantly obvious and think that's an argument against what we are doing here and at PT. Not at all.  
Quote


Why aren't you trying to promote Coca-Cola Dale-boi? Is it because Coca-Cola doesn't need any help from people like you to convince anyone that it's a desirable product? Coca-Cola does just fine without your help, right? How do you think it got to be so popular and remains that way, even though there's a lot of competition? It is because the company that makes it just bottled up a bunch of it, stacked it in a warehouse, and hoped people would come and find it? Does the company think that variable, inconsistent quality is good enough to be successful? Does the company think that they don't need to advertise/promote their products? Is Coca-Cola a field of dreams? How about science?

Well, I DID ask for more stupid questions! Science is the foundation of our modern civilization, so we are surrounded by its products, including Coca-Cola.

Come back when you can organize your thoughts better.

Date: 2011/01/25 19:15:14, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
I find that the profound stupidity of Atheistoclast just makes him yet another "scientific" Creationist loon. Look at how he responded to me:

http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-246700

Quote
 
Quote

You are even dumber than I thought. LOL! Ever heard of mudskippers?

Yeah…they have fins and not legs. Indeed, I would contend that the mudskipper shows the impossibility of the fin to pod transition because it needs its fins when it returns to water. They also need their fins with which to “skip” on land. As I say, I haven’t seen any evidence that there ever existed half fin - half pod structures that would not have been useful at all. I suppose you are also going to bring up the “lungfish” next time round?

Quote

Try googling “Oliver the ‘Humanzee’”, you idiot! He was actually an ordinary chimp that happened to be able to walk upright, just as our pre-human ancestors would have done. Yet he was a perfectly functioning animal in all other respects.

Trust you to bring up a circus trick animal. Shows how much you know or care about science.

Chimpanzees cannot walk upright as we do - they cannot lock their knees in place. Bonobos can typically walk upright for a short distance before they get tired and have to return to knuckle-walking.

deo-06a.html]http://www.arkive.org/bonobo/pan-pa[…]deo-06a.html

They don’t have the pelvis, spine, inner ear, humeral-femural index, feet and many other features that make obligate bipedalism possible. So, we are *obligate* bipeds whereas chimps and bonobos can only do so for short periods of time. They prefer to knuckle-walk and brachiate.
Quote


All genes (and protiens) are made from parts of DNA (and amino acids), which are in turn made from atoms.

You don’t say? Where did the *specific* arrangement of amino acids in these molecules come from? Trial and error?

Quote

Look who’s talking! You haven’t made a credible argument here yet, and we have just been laughing at you like hyenas.

Yes…I bet you sound just like a hyena.

Date: 2011/01/25 20:23:55, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
[quote=Kris,Jan. 25 2011,10:55][/quote]
Kris, can you show where anyone posted YOUR phone number, home address, or anything else you consider personal info here or in PT? Can you show where anyone threaten to call your wife, or any other relative of yours, and tell him or her lies about you?

Because you are indeed a liar, Kris, and you have been lying outright and constantly since you barged into here and possibly since you showed up in PT back in late November. You constantly hold on (at least in public) to those pathetic, baseless delusions about yourself, about science, and about us and spit them out over and over for no other reason than because you think you can get away with it.

"Right back at you." is for grade school punks who are too stupid to come up with a credible argument.

It is not our responsibility to treat you nice when you keep acting like a total @$$hole. If you had come to us nearly three months ago with a different attitude (like that of flowersfriend, to be precise), you'd still be posting in PT now and some of us might even consider you a friend. But you blew it and we all saw you crash and burn. And you have not learned a single thing. In you mind, you have all the answers and are superior to the rest of us. Well, you don't and you are not.

Quote

You keep proving my point about what hypocrites you are.

You said: "If you want to really affect change, then meeting people halfway, being tactful, polite, and arguing with logic and evidence is the best way to go."

You might want to actually do that then. Most of the people on this site, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, etc., are about as far from that as it's possible to be.

You said; "This is 100% about how you act."

Actually, it's 100% about how you and most others here act, and many of you have been doing it for years. Your words are here for anyone to see ya know, whether they ever respond to you or not. Remember what I said about a billboard in your front yard?

You said: "You could take the high road, but you haven't yet. I suspect it's because you have no argument, you just want to whine.  So far, you have doing nothing to show my assumptions about you are false."

Right back at you.

You said: "There's a big difference between what YOU think and reality."

Right back at you.

You said: "We don't like to have thousands of scientists and researchers who have devoted their lifes to learning and knowledge be told that they can't do their work anymore by a 2-bit internet troll."

Where did I say or even imply that scientists can't do their work anymore?

You said: "How you act is up to you."

Right back at you.

You said: "You could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if we don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best."

Well, you could rise above all this and present your arguments, present your evidence and if the religious zealots don't like it, then you can go away with pride that you tried your best.

By the way, my pride is perfectly intact, no matter what happens here.

Date: 2011/01/25 23:46:51, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
You say all that, yet you bashed me for being a Unitarian Universalist, and thus having a religious affiliation and associating freely with religious people. How it is that my example debunks your own claim, yet you attack me too? Or do you EVER think before you spit more venom?

You are an inconsistent fraud, of course.

Here's another entry from that blog of mine you are so obsessed with. Seems you missed this:

   
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010....ristian

For the record, I am very critical of the Christian religion. But my slamming it ends when I am dealing with a Christian who is open-minded enough to befriend and respect me in spite of my hostility towards his religion. Such a person, in turn, earns my respect. I only do battle with bigots among the Christians, not Christians in general. If I hated all Christians, I wouldn’t be a Unitarian Universalist (UU). UUs, even those that reject Christianity, are still Protestants. If not for the Protestant movement in Christianity, UUs as a denomination wouldn’t exist.

I spent one Sunday talking  with a young member of my UU church. She told me about how she visited a Baptist church while wearing a necklace with a rainbow on it, the rainbow being a symbol of gay rights. She was then confronted by the church’s pastor who demanded why she wore such a necklace. The girl then said that she liked other girls, which caused the pastor to give her a lengthy diatribe about how she was headed for hell for being gay.

Later, the UU girl brought to her church a Christian girl who was wearing a cross around her neck. The Christian was confronted by an old UU man who was quite hostile to her and an argument erupted. The UU girl was very embarrassed.

I think that old man should have faced some sort of punishment for his rude behavior. While many people, including myself, regard UU churches as a refuge from Christian fundamentalism, that does not mean we can lable all non-UU Christians as members of the “enemy”. Such an attitude never fails to disgust me. And when a UU teenager is smart enough to recognize the hypocrisy of one of her own elders, that actually gives me hope that the next generation of UUs will be more enlightened and pull UUs in general away from any form of fanaticism, including that of atheists and other anti-Christians. That simply has no place among the UUs!



Kris lied again when he said:
   
Quote

"Stand mute as they build temples to ignorance like the Creation Museum?"

Those are the words that were said about the creation museum, and those are the words I responded to. Nothing was said about funding the museum with government money or tax breaks. Nothing. I don't condone any government money being used for religious things. In fact, I strongly feel that religious organizations/churches should be taxed just like anyone else.

No matter what I say, you people are going to twist it into something else. The only thing you will tolerate is an echo of what you say and believe. You're more like your enemies than you realize.

You people are obsessed. You are consumed by your pathological hatred of religion. It controls every moment of your lives. It controls every thought you have. It is who you are, and what you do. It has imprisoned you. You are as much a slave to your obsession as religious zealots are to theirs, if not more so.

Step out into nature. Breathe in the fresh air. Expand your horizons. It will do you good.


That's exactly how a religious fanatic talks, of course.

Date: 2011/01/28 00:31:30, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 27 2011,19:34)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 27 2011,16:46)
   Just wait.  My girls (2 and nearly 5) have reached the age when they develop an uncanny knack for interrupting any and all attempts at intimacy.  First, they are very careful never to nap at the same time.  If you try the middle of the night, they wake up and crawl in the bed.  If you try the middle of the afternoon, they find a way to get sent home from daycare.   The only option is to call up family/friends and beg them to take the little darlings for twenty minutes (cause it's all about her needs right?).

20 minutes? It takes me longer than that to undress.  Wait ... never mind, I get it..
Seriously, when my daughters were that age, it got so bad that we would go out to "dinner", and order room service from a hotel room.

I assume you two are joking. If any of my children interrupted my time of intimacy with my wife for any reason less than a medical emergency, they would have a severe punishment coming!

But I don't have kids, so what do I know.

Date: 2011/01/28 01:21:23, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,08:14)
In other words, what I said is true. So, again, why aren't you bitching at and about the people who did give flowersfriend a bad time? You keep bitching about me but I never gave her a bad time in the first place, or ever. You lied about that.

You really like to call certain people liars. You call people liars on a regular basis, on your blog and elsewhere, just because they don't instantly and completely agree with you. You think you're a paragon of truth and honor, but you're really just a lying, hypocritical, bigoted, delusional, dishonorable, insane, retarded, impotent, narcissistic, punk-ass sack of rancid shit.

Hey Dale-boi, thanks for the plug, but you left out one of the most important posts of mine. You know, the one with the quote from Darwin. You're not trying to get people to take things out of context, are you? Nah, you'd never do anything like that. You're too "honorable" to do that. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Nice try at quote mining though. Too bad that it makes you look like a desperate douchebag.

I've already been banned from Pharyngula. PZ Myers is a malignant narcissist with delusions of Godhood, just like you Dale-boi. Neither of you are any different from the religious zealots who want to stifle or eliminate anything they don't want to hear.

The quotes he mined don't show the entire or accurate context.

Nothing you said above is even remotely true or logical. Again, you need to think before you spit venom at me or anyone else here. It makes you look stupid.

Date: 2011/01/30 21:21:04, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (vvrobotsvv @ Jan. 30 2011,20:43)
http://www.atheistmedia.com/2011....al.html

WRONG

Dear PZ... I spoke with God yesterday.... Do you want to know what he told me?

CLOBBERING TIME

dawkins - got you...

who's the WINGNUT?

richarddawkins.net/videos/579240-the-truth-about-the-lunatic-religious-right-in-america?page=1


THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - JAN 1, 2011

OMENS OF DEATH:



an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people....

freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24191

All I can say is "Say no to drugs!"

Date: 2011/02/04 00:31:35, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 03 2011,12:22)
javison is... err..... "famous" again


   
Quote

Barack Hussein Obama is the only truly dangerous president in our history as a Republic. He hates Democracy in any form and will go to any length to destroy it. Jerome Corsi properly identified this man even before he became President with his “The Obama Nation.” I would not be a bit surprised to see Obama engineer a devastating attack on the homeland from his radical allies in the arab world. Such an attack would allow him to declare marshal law and further his ambition to nationalize the entire economy. His treatment of Israel is a disgrace and reveals the real Obama as the enemy of Democracy wherever it may exist. Nothing would please him more than to see our ecomomy collapse entirely. That is how Adolf Hitler gained power in Germany. I hate to have to paint such a pictue of our President but his history both genetic and post partum leaves me no alternative. In my opinion we have a mortal enemy in the White House. What makes matters worse is a Supreme Court which I believe has become impotent to implement the Constitution as defined by the Founding Fathers. Our affluence has weakened our will and ethical fiber as it has other civilizations before ours.


I love it so!

oh hell yall probably known that forever but the title of his blag is hilarious.  there is an 800 comment thread there that is almost entirely javison and vmartin trying to make out.  wheeee

For more amusement, I invite you to see this:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010....davison

Read the comments; they are especially hilarious.

Date: 2011/05/14 14:48:12, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Kristine @ May 14 2011,14:32)
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 12 2011,03:26)
Barry Arrington wannabe nullasalus (c'est un vrai nul, ce mec) adopts an interesting technique. Posing a question and stating his intention beforehand to eradicate all the comments he doesn't like. Let's see how that goes!

link

Well it's going about how it usually goes, but someone here has to 'fess up, 'fess up, to this beaut:
   
Quote
So, if any ID advocates here get tired and think that their arguments are falling on deaf ears, let my story here motivate you to keep you in the debate. The tools provided by Behe, Dembski, Meyer and so many here – GilDodgen, kairosfocus, vjtorley, nullasalas, Denyse, Barry, bornagain,etc. – the links, the books, the arguments – have not only made a profound difference in my life, but in the lives of many people I know who were once atheistic or agnostic, and are now disabused of that unsupportable position and are also intellectually fulfilled theists.

Thank you. ID and the love a good, theistic woman has transformed my life.

:D *ahem* :) :p :D

Honestly, people - that's just cruel. It's like arguing with your opponent while he's having a coughing fit (like me when I finished this) and then having the "good cop" step in.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-380057
Quote

When I first came across ID I was an atheist. However, being married to a firm believer in god, my love for my wife had tempered any condescension or vitriol I had previously felt for the religious.

I became interested in ID simply because, for whatever reason, I immediately recognized the arguments against ID to be contrived, and the arguments that ID proponents were making were not only intuitively on target, they were sound rationally.

I really began realizing that what I thought was sound logic and reasoning for atheism, was really just emotion-appealing rhetoric and artful dodging of fundamental contradictions of necessary first principles and right reasoning.

ID introduced me to a world of theistic reasoning that I had frankly never been exposed to before. My atheism – like that of many, I imagine – was more of an emotional reaction to the blatantly cartoonish, ultra-hypocritical, unbelievable, and unsupportable-even-if-true God I was presented with by those who raised me (or, at least, that’s how my young mind perceived the god that had been presented). There was no way, I thought at the time, that any reasonable, intelligent person could believe in such an entity.

ID theorists and calm, reasoned arguments by theistic philosophers involved in ID, and their logical dismantling of the atheistic/materialist perspective into incoherency due to lack of any necessary first principles eventually made me realize that no argument can be sustained by basis unless logic and truth exist as their own commodities, and not as the relativistic, solipsistic computations of material machinery.

Either God exists, or we must admit we each live in a solipsistic bubble of material programming utterly incapable of discerning true statements from false, without even a meaningful way to do so, and without any reason to do so. ID proponents elegantly demonstrated that you can no more argue truth or attain teleology from the “is” of mechanical materialism than you can honestly argue by the merits that a long series of happy accidents can generate the deep, interconnected, inter-dependent complex coded nano-technology found in a single cell.

ID proponents laid the groundwork for me to set aside my emotional barricade against the idea of god and re-examine the issue from a more adult and logical perspective.

To borrow from Dawkins, ID has made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled theist. With that more sound and reasoned theism, I have found a peace, happiness and fulfillment that before had always eluded me.

So, if any ID advocates here get tired and think that their arguments are falling on deaf ears, let my story here motivate you to keep you in the debate. The tools provided by Behe, Dembski, Meyer and so many here – GilDodgen, kairosfocus, vjtorley, nullasalas, Denyse, Barry, bornagain,etc. – the links, the books, the arguments – have not only made a profound difference in my life, but in the lives of many people I know who were once atheistic or agnostic, and are now disabused of that unsupportable position and are also intellectually fulfilled theists.

Thank you. ID and the love a good, theistic woman has transformed my life.


Sorry, but if the only reason you believe in God (and swallow ID bullcrap) is because you fell in love with a woman who is a theist, your atheism was not based on reality to begin with. Atheism doesn't have to be about hating religions or religious people. It shouldn't be. This guy's atheism was as shallow as a child's swimming pool.

Date: 2011/05/20 14:08:48, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
There are beautiful women all over the world!

Date: 2011/05/25 14:58:02, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Hey, can someone explain to me why I am not allowed to start a new thread here? I noticed that asshole Kris (remember him?) was able to start one several months ago titled "Kris on Comments". He's gone, but I'm still here!

Date: 2011/05/25 15:34:12, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 25 2011,15:15)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ May 25 2011,20:58)
Hey, can someone explain to me why I am not allowed to start a new thread here? I noticed that asshole Kris (remember him?) was able to start one several months ago titled "Kris on Comments". He's gone, but I'm still here!

Dale: the thread was not started by Kris, but by someone with privilege (Richard, IIRC, but I might be wrong).

You have to ask for edit button and topic-start privilege first. See Wes or Lou or Kristine.

Kris is listed as the topic starter here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....01;st=0

I was astonished that he would be allowed to start a thread here, or even that a moderator would start a thread for him. And that made this statement of his a form of Earth's core irony:
 
Quote

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,19:35)
Wesley, your MASSIVE hypocrisy is showing, and so is that of your sycophants. You posted your incredibly hypocritical remarks on Panda's Thumb, even though Panda's Thumb censors and moderates comments, and bans people who "dissent".

It is astounding to me that you won't see that you condone the exact thing that you're bitching about. The DI may be run by hypocritical people but you've got no room to condemn them unless you advocate completely open, free speech here and on Panda's Thumb, and everywhere else.

How can you live with yourself? Why aren't you bitching about Panda's Thumb moderating, censoring, and banning??


Later, he was confronted about his misdeeds by someone named Occam's Toothbrush:

 
Quote

Funny, I don't ever threaten anonymous people I argue with on websites with physical violence, no matter what they say to me.  I don't post their personal information online either, or make childish threats to call their spouses and tell them intimate details I think would damage their relationships.  I guess you have different standards.  That's why I suggest finding help before you hurt yourself or someone else.  


When I saw that, I assumed that everyone else knew what he was referring to. So then I said:

 
Quote
Message to Kris:

Hey, bastard! Are you forgetting that you made references to my wife, who never before posted anything in PT before, to insult me? You even threatened to make crank calls to her after posting my home number for all to see! You are sick as it gets!



But then I later had to back up my claim with this:
 
Quote

http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-244930

[Kris replied to comment from Dale Husband

Hmm, maybe I should give (wife's name) a call and let her know you want to cheat on her. Wadda ya think?]

(Kris posted a phone number that was later deleted by the PT admins.)


I wondered how long we would have to put up with his pathetic whining. But AFAIK, Kris has posted nothing here since January. If he was banned from here, I am relieved. If not, maybe he finally got the message and checked himself into a psychatric hospital.

But if he ever comes back, he'd better understand that there is nothing wrong with being religious, or even being Creationist. The problem is and always has been people claiming their religion can be rationally defended or that there is scientific evidence for a creation event like that in the Book of Genesis. People who claim these are liars, and there is no ethical reason to tolerate or respect anyone who makes such a false claim in public forums like this.

Date: 2011/06/28 11:47:30, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
I see no point in ANYONE wasting their money on Expelled. I spent $8.00 on it a couple of years ago, and that was enough forever. It was a crappy movie, and it should be forgotten. Let dead dogs stay dead.

Date: 2011/06/28 11:51:38, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
I have a request. Can there be a thread somewhere  that we can debate the connections, if any, between anti-evolutionism and global warming denialism? I see such a connection but I'd like to know what others think.

Date: 2011/06/28 18:55:13, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
You can always tell it's David Mabus by how looney his posts are.

 
Quote (divinejust369 @ June 28 2011,18:05)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Kristine]<br/><br/>WHACKANATHEIST


http://dyn.politico.com/members....5609271

http://network.nature.com/groups/natureindia/forum/topics/9596

http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/4812830/ShowThread.aspx#4812830

http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-The-End-of-America-The-End-of-War

Date: 2011/06/29 00:03:36, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (divinejust446 @ June 28 2011,23:52)

What, are you Hindu now, David Mabusive?

Date: 2011/06/30 00:59:15, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
I've always been opposed to nuclear power. It's too damned expensive, and too dangerous! People have died because of it! How many people have been killed by wind farms or solar panels? None that I know of! Sure, some birds may be killed by wind farms. Cats also kill birds, but you don't consider that reason to never have them around, do you?

If we could have nearly the entire Sahara Desert covered by wind farms and solar panel stations, Africa would probably be freed from depending on any other energy source. And that must scare the fossil fuel companies $#itless!

Date: 2011/06/30 01:04:47, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Robin, my admiration for you just shot up 100 points! Bravo!

 
Quote (Robin @ June 29 2011,09:35)
 
Quote (Trubble @ June 29 2011,00:19)
Mind if I ask for a definition of terms here?


Have at it!

   
Quote
What exactly constitutes a global warming denier?


An excellent question! Let's see what our options are:

   
Quote
Are you a denier if you agree global warming is occurring, but that various natural causes are more to blame than human activity?


Mmm...probably not.

   
Quote
How about if you agree global warming is real, but that the impact in future will be less catastrophic than suggested by some? Is that denial?


I'd say no.

   
Quote
How about if you agree global warming is occurring, and human activity is the main driver, but reversing it is impractical and we'd be better off finding ways to adapt?


Ummm...still no.

   
Quote
And before any of you zealots...


Yep, THAT would be it!

   
Quote
...jump on me, I'm not advocating any of those positions. I just find it strange that such a sharp demarcation is drawn on an area of research that is really still in its early stages.


See...this kind of defensiveness is a real clue that you have an agenda. People without agendas merely ask, "what's a global warming denier?" and then discuss the concept. By immediately distancing yourself from the issue ('no really...I don't have a dog in this fight!!!') and at the same time calling us "zealots", you've tipped your hand.

The demarcation is easy - anyone who denies the reality of the data suggesting that the planet is warming and the contribution to said warming by human activity is a pretty straight forward demarcation. Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.

Tsk tsk...

Date: 2011/06/30 23:38:57, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Trubble @ June 30 2011,15:55)
Great. That's the very reaction I wanted to preempt. My fault, I probably should have approached the counter with more care, like George placing his order with the Soup Nazi.*

I used "you zealots" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the kind of person who would immediately see my questions as masking some kind of anti-science agenda. In retrospect, perhaps a bad choice of words, but I didn't actually think people here would be that sensitive.

My "agenda" was to try to elaborate the denier label. It seems to be thrown around pretty carelessly at times, so I was curious where people here draw the line. I gave specific examples in order to get specific answers, instead of generalities. Several people provided thoughtful answers. To them, thanks.

My own view is that global warming is real, is serious, and is at least largely caused by human activity. But I also think drastic action is impractical right now, so we should be looking at what is realistically doable. I know some would label that view as "denial", which is why I asked.

Also for the record, I've been coming to this site almost daily for about five years, mainly for the funny and to keep up with the creationism issue, which I find fascinating. I just don't make posts, because I don't have any particular expertise in science, just a layman's interest and an undergrad anthro degree.

     
Quote
Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.


Well, I guess it's all relative. If you're sitting in a doctor's waiting room, an hour is "quite some time." Genetics research has been going on for about a century. It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s, making it a relatively new field (my stereo speakers are older than that). Yes, I misspoke to say it's in its early stages, but I still think there's a lot more work needed on some critically important questions.

     
Quote
Tsk tsk...


Do I feel chastened? Hmmmm... No.

* For the humour-impaired or terminally suspicious, no, I'm not comparing anyone here with Nazis. It's just a Seinfeld reference. You could look it up.


Actually, the foundations for global warming research extend all the way back to the end of the 19th Century. It actually started with this scientist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

Date: 2011/06/30 23:43:35, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
I used to be able to read French, but not in a long time. Can someone translate that?

http://tinyurl.com/6z5ad3a

 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 30 2011,15:51)
Damn damn damn damn!!! Jehova's witness win free tax stuff in EU court!

Where did we hide the nukes again?

Date: 2011/07/01 22:32:18, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Yikes! I made my request for a thread on this forum dedicated to global warming a couple of nights ago and wasn't even aware of THIS! My apologies!

Date: 2011/07/01 22:35:00, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Dale_Husband @ June 28 2011,11:51)
I have a request. Can there be a thread somewhere  that we can debate the connections, if any, between anti-evolutionism and global warming denialism? I see such a connection but I'd like to know what others think.

Well, I found one that already existed! Why couldn't I have been told of this before?
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=7260

Date: 2011/07/02 22:09:21, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 02 2011,08:39)
Topic creation got a bit out of hand for a while. I'm trying to generalize topics as the need arises, thus this one goes from being only about one politician's cluelessness on global warming to a general thread with some notice of the one politician.

Good, now maybe you could move all the posts on the Bathroom Wall this past week referring to global warming to here too?

Date: 2011/07/02 22:41:07, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Or maybe this will do:

 
Quote (Robin @ June 28 2011,12:11)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ June 28 2011,11:51)
I have a request. Can there be a thread somewhere  that we can debate the connections, if any, between anti-evolutionism and global warming denialism? I see such a connection but I'd like to know what others think.


I'd be all for it, mostly because I don't get global warming denial and would love to read a succinct explanation for the argument and mindset.

Near as I can tell though, it appears the same style of "logic" is used in each groups' arguments. They may well be made up of the same people for all I know, but if so I can't figure out why.


Quote (OgreMkV @ June 28 2011,12:26)

I personally think that global warming denial is exactly like creationism.

There is a small group of 'leaders' (Fred Singer is one) who knows that they are spreading lies, but have a good reason for doing so (related to finances).

Then there are the 'unwashed masses' who believe them for whatever reason: Republicans who have full trust in what their GOP leaders say, people who hate any form of government intrusion, industry workers who view it as a threat to their jobs, etc.

These guys are in full thrall to the leaders who know they are peddling lies.  Just like the denzions of UD are in thrall of Dembski, Behe, and Meyer who are smart enough to know better.


Quote (fnxtr @ June 28 2011,21:50)

One of the authors of "Merchants of Doubt", whose name escapes me, was on Mothercorp (CBC) this morning. She pointed out that many of the climate change deniers are the same people who were previously ozone-hole deniers, tobacco->cancer deniers, and so on. Not just the same "fog up the science window" tactics, the very same people.  I was waiting for her to add evolution-deniers to the list, but maybe it's in the book.


Quote (sledgehammer @ June 29 2011,00:27)

Seems to me that the common theme here is science denial:
"It's those know-it-all, arrogant scientists trying to tell us what's what. They are the source of all our problems, and the reason the world is going to Hell on a Harley. Life was so much simpler when we were all ignorant and easily manipulated by those in power, and it's so much more comforting to be sheep, and place our trust in the anointed shepherds."


Quote (Erasmus @ FCD, June 29 2011,01:49)

i propose a clear demarcation standard (it might prove insufficient, yet)

ahem.  

"hoax", "fraud", "IPCC are godless homocommies", "Algoremanbearpig is fat and flies huge planes around between his empty climate controlled manbearpigcaves", "didn't you hear they made it all up" or "Climategate" is grounds for dismissal and hurling of insults with preening nerd justificationisms


how does that sound?  muuuah


Quote (Badger3k @ June 29 2011,08:46)


Most of those who are in the Denier camp seem to advocate that humans are not doing anything that can affect the environment and cause any warming.  That is the most common usage of the term, since to most people "global warming" = "anthropogenic global warming".  Thus your first choice would be a Denier, while the other two are more in the "accept that AGW is real, and we're trying to figure out how to respond to it".  

At least, that's the way I see it.  Could be wrong, tho'.


Quote (OgreMkV @ June 29 2011,09:31)

I agree with this.  No sane person disagrees that the Earth is getting warmer.  The ten hottest years on record have all occurred in the last 13 years.

When 'global warming' is bandied about, it is most commonly meant to be 'human-caused global warming'.  Which, strangely is not up for debate either, by any climate scientist that I'm aware of (Singer doesn't count).

As far as the rest, if human activity is causing global warming, then we have two choices

1) Stop causing it
2) Continue causing it and live with the consequences

Much too much to get into right now though.


Quote (Robin @ June 29 2011,09:35)



Quote (Trubble @ June 29 2011,00:19)
Mind if I ask for a definition of terms here?


Have at it!

 
Quote
What exactly constitutes a global warming denier?


An excellent question! Let's see what our options are:

 
Quote
Are you a denier if you agree global warming is occurring, but that various natural causes are more to blame than human activity?


Mmm...probably not.

 
Quote
How about if you agree global warming is real, but that the impact in future will be less catastrophic than suggested by some? Is that denial?


I'd say no.

 
Quote
How about if you agree global warming is occurring, and human activity is the main driver, but reversing it is impractical and we'd be better off finding ways to adapt?


Ummm...still no.

 
Quote
And before any of you zealots...


Yep, THAT would be it!

 
Quote
...jump on me, I'm not advocating any of those positions. I just find it strange that such a sharp demarcation is drawn on an area of research that is really still in its early stages.


See...this kind of defensiveness is a real clue that you have an agenda. People without agendas merely ask, "what's a global warming denier?" and then discuss the concept. By immediately distancing yourself from the issue ('no really...I don't have a dog in this fight!!!') and at the same time calling use "zealots", you've tipped your hand.

The demarcation is easy - anyone who denies the reality of the data suggesting that the planet is warming and the contribution to said warming by human activity is a pretty straight forward demarcation. Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.

Tsk tsk...


Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 29 2011,12:08)



 
Quote (Trubble @ June 29 2011,00:19)
Mind if I ask for a definition of terms here? What exactly constitutes a global warming denier?

Are you a denier if you agree global warming is occurring, but that various natural causes are more to blame than human activity?


Yes.

 
Quote
How about if you agree global warming is real, but that the impact in future will be less catastrophic than suggested by some? Is that denial?


It depends on the specifics.  Mealy mouthed claims of "less catastrophic" Yes.

Some things are quite clear, such as sea level rise, melting of arctic sea ice, increased extremes in recipitation / drought. If someone will acknowledge that these will increase but not be catastrophic I would like to see them tell the victims that the effects were not catastrophes, just mild inconveniences.

 
Quote
How about if you agree global warming is occurring, and human activity is the main driver, but reversing it is impractical and we'd be better off finding ways to adapt?


No.  

 
Quote
And before any of you zealots jump on me, I'm not advocating any of those positions. I just find it strange that such a sharp demarcation is drawn on an area of research that is really still in its early stages.



Quote (midwifetoad @ June 29 2011,12:34)

I agree that warming is happening, that humans are a primary cause, and that it could be unpleasant and expensive to protect (or abandon) coastal cities.

I simply think the only way to mitigate or reverse the trend is to move toward nuclear power, preferably thorium, which produces no byproducts with military applications, and which is well understood, and has been for 50 years.

I am sad that the people who are concerned with warming are mostly opposed to the only viable solution.

I think fusion energy is a fantasy, maybe centuries away.

Solar and wind have so many undesirable side costs that I think they will never compete with nuclear.

Nuclear can be used to produce alcohol and hydrogen, which are the only fuels likely to replace gasoline.


Quote (Kristine @ June 29 2011,12:57)

While we're on the subject of global warming denial:
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ June 23 2011,15:31)
Two new docs for you guys to check out:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/SpOILed-The-Movie/216288371729865

http://www.facebook.com/sexandmoneyfilm


"SpOILed" is just another "drill-baby-drill" tome. "This film will change the way you think!" We can't drill here or there, while China laughs at us, etc. Same old crap. I used to be a film critic before I entered grad school, and am not easily fooled by naifs.

I have not been able to find out much about "Sex and Money," so I cannot say anything about it, but Kevin's films have really been tanking on iMDb, including "After..." which was the one effort of his which did intrigue me.
 
Quote
Kevin has written, co-written, and edited over 40 books, both fiction and non-fiction.

"Both fiction and nonfiction." :)

ETA - "We need your prayers and YOUR MONEY to fund 'Doctor Dino'." :D Hey Walt Ruloff! Why didn't you help these poor people out?


Quote (Henry J @ June 29 2011,13:28)

I deny that my globe is any warmer than anything else in my living room!


Quote (OgreMkV @ June 29 2011,13:35)

Nuclear is dead.  Whether or not is a viable technical solution, it is economically and socially dead tech.

1) It is not economic.  I have compared the various techs and nuclear is about half the cost of solar and ten percent more expensive than wind power.  

For the same price as a new (current technology, no future tech) nuclear plant, a utility can build an equivalent capacity (not name plate, but actual production capacity) of wind power AND a multi-megawatt storage system for base load production.

Plus, the wind farm can be completely on-line in less than a year.  The nuclear plant will not even begin production once construction has started for between 6-16 years.  

The cost of nuclear based electricity has remained the same over the last 30 years, while the cost of wind and solar have dropped considerably.

2) Solar and Wind with storage can provide baseload power, so that's a non-issue.  Spain has several molten salt solar thermal plants.  The most current is only 20MW, but can also provide power for 15 hours with zero sunlight.

You don't mention 'so many undesirable side costs', but I've been studying this subject for 2-3 years now and I haven't found any 'undesirable side costs'.

3) Any electricity source can be used to make hydrogen.  But hydrogen is not the only thing that could conceivably replace gasoline.  Top of the line (still expensive) pure electric vehicles can currently achieve 300 miles per charge (at highway speeds).*  There are electric semi-trucks that can pull standard trailers for in-town delivery purposes.  If you eliminate cross-country trucks, then fossil fuel vehicles would no longer be needed.


Like, I said, I've been looking at this for years.  If it's a choice between nuclear and fossil.  Then I'm all for nuclear.

If you throw renewables (wind and solar) into the choices, then forget nuclear and go for wind and solar.


*Personally speaking, I haven't driven more than 250 miles in one day in over 7 years.  If you skip one driving vacation, then I haven't driven over 250 miles in over 17 years).


Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 29 2011,15:07)


Quote (midwifetoad @ June 29 2011,12:34)

  I simply think the only way to mitigate or reverse the trend is to move toward nuclear power, preferably thorium, which produces no byproducts with military applications, and which is well understood, and has been for 50 years.


Not so.  The US has made and exploded a U-233 bomb.  Its critical mass is somewhat greater than plutonium, much less than U-235.

Nevertheless, due to radiation issues, making U-233 weapons is considered to be difficult, and thus the thorium cycle by itself is likely to impede proliferation.  

Of course there are other issues, like the fact that fairly highly enriched uranium (although far less than weapon-grade, something like 25% enriched) would be needed to begin the fuel cycle, and, due to relatively poor U-233 breeding, enriched uranium would necessarily continue to be input, at least in any reactors made thus far.  So the whole uranium issue isn't exactly gone, but perhaps would be manageable (weapons grade U-235  or plutonium never needing to be involved, at least).

Since transuranic elements would be little made, the thorium cycle itself would create only fairly short-lived isotopes (order of centuries at most), although the uranium inputs would continue to produce some of the longer-lived transuranics--unless very highly enriched uranium were in fact used (actually, via U-236 even HEU would produce some transuranics, but relatively little).  Still, less of the long-term radiation poisons would result.

I can't detail why, but it's thought that thorium reactors would operate more inherently safely than, say, pressurized uranium reactors (which can be quite safe, IMO).  So there's another plus.

There are worthwhile advantages to thorium--especially the quantity available--and so it's probably worth pursuing. I just wonder why it gets such glowing press.  Worst of all in that respect is that people will say that thorium was ignored because it doesn't produce plutonium, when in fact lightwater reactors are not very good producers of it either--one of the reasons why they are pushed in this world.  True, reprocessing can yield useful plutonium, but it's still expensive, and the yield isn't nearly as good as natural uranium reactors using graphite or heavy water as moderators (the Soviets did use power reactors to breed plutonium, in fact, one reason Chernobyl was unsafe and used graphite as moderator).

   
Quote
I am sad that the people who are concerned with warming are mostly opposed to the only viable solution.


It's far from perfect, but yes, nuclear actually works, and could help transitionally.  I'd rather it not be the long-term "solution" for power production.

   
Quote
Solar and wind have so many undesirable side costs that I think they will never compete with nuclear.


Never?  Why not?  Thin-film solar might someday be fairly cheap (nothing is known to prevent this), and storage might come down as well.  Wind will never be cheap compared to non-capture coal, but should be useful as a supplement--not a bad price when warming is factored in, yet it's limited and incapable of reasonable baseload generation.

But it's very annoying to get the hand-waving "costs are coming down" when nuclear vs. solar is being discussed.  Who cares?  Costs have always been coming down, and they're still high even without the heavy added cost of storage, which isn't even slightly realistic at present.  

No one who says solar is competitive explains how it is.  They don't bother with our pathetic level of detail, because, well, the details aren't friendly to such claims.

   
Quote
Nuclear can be used to produce alcohol and hydrogen, which are the only fuels likely to replace gasoline.


Yes, but we're still far from that being affordable.  Interestingly, though, nuclear using electrolysis at high temperatures (which nukes can provide quite readily) boosts efficiency clear up to 50%, from 30%.  50% isn't anything very impressive either, however.

Glen Davidson


Quote (Dale_Husband @ June 30 2011,00:59)

I've always been opposed to nuclear power. It's too damned expensive, and too dangerous! People have died because of it! How many people have been killed by wind farms or solar panels? None that I know of! Sure, some birds may be killed by wind farms. Cats also kill birds, but you don't consider that reason to never have them around, do you?

If we could have nearly the entire Sahara Desert covered by wind farms and solar panel stations, Africa would probably be freed from depending on any other energy source. And that must scare the fossil fuel companies $#itless!


Quote (Dale_Husband @ June 30 2011,01:04)

Robin, my admiration for you just shot up 100 points! Bravo!



Quote (Trubble @ June 30 2011,15:55)

 
Quote (Robin @ June 29 2011,09:35)
See...this kind of defensiveness is a real clue that you have an agenda. People without agendas merely ask, "what's a global warming denier?" and then discuss the concept. By immediately distancing yourself from the issue ('no really...I don't have a dog in this fight!!!') and at the same time calling use "zealots", you've tipped your hand.


Great. That's the very reaction I wanted to preempt. My fault, I probably should have approached the counter with more care, like George placing his order with the Soup Nazi.*

I used "you zealots" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the kind of person who would immediately see my questions as masking some kind of anti-science agenda. In retrospect, perhaps a bad choice of words, but I didn't actually think people here would be that sensitive.

My "agenda" was to try to elaborate the denier label. It seems to be thrown around pretty carelessly at times, so I was curious where people here draw the line. I gave specific examples in order to get specific answers, instead of generalities. Several people provided thoughtful answers. To them, thanks.

My own view is that global warming is real, is serious, and is at least largely caused by human activity. But I also think drastic action is impractical right now, so we should be looking at what is realistically doable. I know some would label that view as "denial", which is why I asked.

Also for the record, I've been coming to this site almost daily for about five years, mainly for the funny and to keep up with the creationism issue, which I find fascinating. I just don't make posts, because I don't have any particular expertise in science, just a layman's interest and an undergrad anthro degree.

   
Quote
Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.


Well, I guess it's all relative. If you're sitting in a doctor's waiting room, an hour is "quite some time." Genetics research has been going on for about a century. It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s, making it a relatively new field (my stereo speakers are older than that). Yes, I misspoke to say it's in its early stages, but I still think there's a lot more work needed on some critically important questions.

   
Quote
Tsk tsk...


Do I feel chastened? Hmmmm... No.

* For the humour-impaired or terminally suspicious, no, I'm not comparing anyone here with Nazis. It's just a Seinfeld reference. You could look it up.


Quote (Dale Husband @ June 30 2011,23:38)

Actually, the foundations for global warming research extend all the way back to the end of the 19th Century. It actually started with this scientist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science


Quote (Louis @ July 01 2011,04:23)

Ah, one of those. No worries!

However people here throw the denier label around (rightly, wrongly or indifferently) denialism itself is a topic of study in its own right. The commonalities between creationist anti-science denialism and the anti-science denialism that is involved in AGW denial are stark. The same applies to any anti-science denialism I can think of. I used to have some proper resources around here somewhere, I'll see if I can dig them up.

Like anything, there's a spectrum of denial, and I don't think mere ignorance falls on it. Most people I encounter who are pro/anti AGW are pretty ill informed about it, and seem to hold those positions for other reasons. I realise anecdote =/= data, but I can hardly count my parents (for example) as AGW deniers because they simply know nothing about it, and the tiny about they do claim to know is derived solely from their choice of newspaper (The Daily Mail.....yes, it is that bad, feel my pain!). They engage in some denialist type behaviour, but they aren't informed enough to be denialists proper. This applies to the majority of creationists and other species of denialists too. They simply haven't given the subjects they are denying the effort and study they require to even engage in denialism.They might be resistant to evidence initially, but the majority of people are open to some form of new information. Obviously! Otherwise bugger all would ever change, and change it does! ;-)

A couple of initial thoughts on denialism can be found
here, here, here, here, and here.

Those aren't proper references, just a few things to wet your beak! Enjoy!

Louis

Date: 2011/07/02 23:10:25, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
There are a lot of useful websites about this subject:

http://www.ipcc.ch/:....: The website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/:....: The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Deals directly with researching and reporting climate science. Led by Dr. James E. Hansen.

http://www.noaa.gov/climate....e.html: The climate section of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

http://www.realclimate.org/....ate.org : A blog by climate scientists on the latest developments on the science. Highly technical.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/....nce.com : A website dealing with arguments and claims of global warming "skeptics".

http://nsidc.org/index.h....x.html: The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), does research on the impact of climate change on mountain and polar ice sheets, along with snowfall patterns.

http://www.desmogblog.com/:....: A blog investigating critics of climate science, often revealing their connections to fossil fuel industries.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/:....: Shows graphic displays of various forms of climate data that the user may edit according to whatever limits they define.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa........a.... :  ExxonSecrets, a project of Greenpeace which documents in interactive and graphic form the connections between global warming denialists and their corporate supporters, including political think-tanks.

http://deepclimate.org/:....: An exploration of the climate science “skeptic” phenomenon in Canada and beyond.  

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/:....: The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) is the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/:....: Global Warming Art is the result of a dream that the public and educators should have easy access to the same data and results that have framed the scientific discussion of global warming and climate change.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/:....: The DISCOVER Project, the Distributed Information Services for Climate and Ocean Products and Visualizations for Earth Research.

http://www.aip.org/history....ex.htm: This Website, created by Spencer Weart, supplements his much shorter book, which tells the history of climate change research as a single story. On this Website you will find a more complete history in dozens of essays on separate topics, occasionally updated.

http://www.logicalscience.com/:....: The mission of Logical Science is to defend mainstream science. We will do this by exposing how poorly it is portrayed by the mass media and documenting the war on science that industrial and special interest groups have been waging to promote their ideology. An associated blog can be found here: http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/....pot.com  

http://www.climateark.org/:....: Climate Ark is a climate change and global warming portal, search engine and news feed that promotes public policy that addresses global climate change through reductions in carbon dioxide and other emissions, renewable energy, energy conservation and efficiency, and ending deforestation.

http://www.acoolerclimate.com/:....: Another website dedicated to combating misinformation about climate change.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibit....ex.jsp: From the website of the Marian Koshland Science Museum, this section deals with climate change.

And last, but not least:

http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/categor....: The section of my Wordpress blog dealing with global warming.

Date: 2011/07/04 04:01:10, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2010.......warming

 
Quote

That cesspool of Young-Earth Creationism, Answers in Genesis, has weighed in on the issue of global warming, coming down firmly on the side of denialism. I’m not surprized, since I always knew Creationism to be a form of evolution denialism. Denialists tend to flock together and be denialists about more than one subject, and this proves it:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....warming

Let us focus on the statements that make this piece so unscientific, if not downright rediculous.

 
Quote


Oddly, the church has had little to say on the issue and has made scant use of Scripture to evaluate the alleged problem.


Of course not! When the books of the Bible were being written, climate science didn’t even exist!

 
Quote
It will be shown that the Bible provides sufficient counsel to enable Christians to evaluate the claims of global warming and arrive at a confident position that is in accord with real science.


That’s a tall order, since there is no real science in the Bible.

 
Quote
The contention that man’s activities are causing global warming, as described in the media and by its advocates, is a myth. There is no reason either biblically or scientifically to fear the exaggerated and misguided claims of catastrophe as a result of increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2).


They use “science” only when it suits them. That’s as bad and dishonest as denying it completely.

 
Quote
Al Gore contends that the greatest moral issue of our times is global warming. In addition, he and others characterize global warming, which he considers to be predominately caused by man, as a moral, ethical and spiritual challenge.


Making Al Gore the primary issue instead of the actual data is itself a serious weakness.

 
Quote
If he is right, then Christians should examine this issue and take a strong biblical position. Moral, ethical and spiritual issues are the domain of the church.


In other words, people should never think for themselves, but just let the church, and its interpretation of the Bible, tell them what to think.

 
Quote
Obviously, not even all creationists will agree with every assertion in this paper.


Why even mention that as an issue? Oh, because you expect all creationists to agree with every assertion in the Bible.

 
Quote
The spiritual implications of accepting evolution have been eloquently and comprehensively argued by many creationist organizations. Yet, for far too long the creation-evolution debate has been viewed by many, even in the church, as an abstract, academic topic with little relevance to real life.


Actually, most people in the church accept evolution outright, but you don’t want to admit that, do you?

 
Quote
Man-made global warming is a direct product of evolutionary thinking, and the potential impacts are very applicable to real life.


Confusing words here. I think he meant “The man-made global warming hypothesis is a direct product of evolutionary thinking.” In any case, that first part is a falsehood, since the issue of lines of organisms changing over time has nothing to do with climate change.

 
Quote
Proposed secular solutions to the alleged claims of global warming will directly impact everyone who depends on fossil fuels for their current life style. The issue of global warming presents biblical creationists with an opportunity to demonstrate not only the efficacy of Scripture in addressing life’s issues, but also to show how ignoring Scripture leads to unnecessary, expensive, and harmful actions.


Sure, just as unearthing and burning fossil fuels is never harmful. Tell that to the people living around the Gulf of Mexico, where that oil spill from BP’s broken well ruined the waters and the coast last year!

 
Quote
God is the creator of the universe. In His Word, the Bible, God has addressed every area of life (family, state, church, science, man, sin, etc.). God’s Word is truth. The revelation given to us in Scripture is sufficient to enable man to understand the world around him and make decisions that will honor God and benefit mankind. When faced with a challenge, a follower of Christ should first ask, “What has God said that will help me understand this issue and respond in a manner that honors Him?”


I already addressed these claims here: http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009.......-of-god  And if God is the creator of the universe, then what you find when you examine the universe should match what is stated in the Bible. If that were so, evolution as a credible scientific theory would never have been established. Nor would the idea that the universe is more than a few thousand years old, or even that some stars are bigger and  brighter than the Sun, as explained here: http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009.......genesis In any case, equating any man-made book with the “Word of God” should be seen as nothing more than idolatry or blasphemy: http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2007.......asphemy

There follows a list of terms associated with the subject of climate change that is generally accurate.

 
Quote
Before our country commits to spending billions (probably trillions) of dollars on CO2 reduction, we need to consider what light the Bible can shed on this issue.


Strange that Answers in Genesis never says anything about the wars that have been fought in Afghanistan or Iraq or about the actions of the state of Israel, maybe because like most Christian fundamentalists, they blindly support those wars and Israel, no matter what. See this earlier entry for details: http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009.......ossible

 
Quote
Exactly why are global warming advocates so concerned about burning fossil fuels and the harvesting of forests? It must be kept in mind that global warming advocates are predominantly evolutionists. Al Gore readily admits that he is an evolutionist (Gore 2006, p. 160).


Evolution had nothing to do with the known processes of climate change, past or present.

 
Quote
Accordingly, they believe that there was a time in the distant past when earth’s atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of CO2 (over 21%) and no oxygen (O2). They believe the earth’s atmosphere developed O2 only as a result of photosynthesis by plants or bacteria (Bergman and Renwick 2003, p. 137). Advocates believe that forests, especially tropical rain forests, are the largest reservoir for storing carbon and generating oxygen on land. This helps explain their strong desire to protect rain forests. From an evolutionary perspective it is easy to see why preserving forests and reducing CO2 is important, even if the projected catastrophes are unfounded or exaggerated.


Studies of rocks from billions of years ago support these conclusions, even without reference to evolution. Plants and cyanobacteria DO release oxygen into the atmosphere. There are vast amounts of plant matter in the tropical rain forests. You need no knowledge of or belief in evolution to understand these facts.

 
Quote
The Bible provides frank and absolutely reliable direction for every moral issue experienced by mankind.


No it doesn’t! Read the book of Joshua to see a campaign of conquest and genocide by the ancient Hebrews, done under God’s total approval. Would this writer claim that genocide is moral?

 
Quote
The biblical position on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality are clear to those who accept the inspiration of Scripture and who understand the straightforward implications of Scripture on these issues, but other issues require thoughtful study of Scripture.


The Bible actually does not address the modern issue of abortion (though fundamentalists will twist biblical passages to make it appear otherwise) and it must be noted that Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality. Do Christians really follow Jesus when they bash homosexuals based on either Old Testament  laws or the writings of Paul, who wasn’t even an original disciple of Jesus?

 
Quote
The Bible-science movement is keenly interested in determining the original intent of biblical passages. A joint study by the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research called Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) illustrates this point. The study team included a Hebrew scholar, Dr. Steven Boyd, whose task was to determine if the Genesis creation verses are narrative or poetry, a critical question. If the passages are poetry then they merely illustrate a spiritual truth, but if they are narrative then they describe real events and real people. Dr. Boyd determined that Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is narrative with a 99.996% probability at a 99.5% confidence level (Vardiman et al. 2005, p. 690).


When Jesus spoke in parables, was he speaking poetry? Doesn’t look like it. In any case, it doesn’t matter, because the literal meaning of the Genesis accounts is discredited anyway. I said accounts because there are two of them and the other begins at Gen. 2:4. Dr. Boyd seems to have not looked at that one.

 
Quote
A created atmosphere has purpose, stability, and is more robust than a randomly evolved atmosphere.


Then can this writer explain why we are cursed with hurricanes, tornados, thunderstorms and other disasters resulting from atmospheric distubances? Oh, it must be due to human sin! But since animals and plants also suffer from storms, are they all sinners too?

 
Quote
Aside from all the other reasons for which God may have created plants, the Bible specifically states that He made them for human and animal food, and this is largely being ignored by global warming advocates.


Aside from some plants being poisonous to us, it must be noted that the effect of global warming on agriculture is indeed a major concern of scientists researching climate change.

 
Quote
Since all animals and mankind were vegetarians originally, plants were created as a reliable and sustainable source of food.


Idiotic premise leading to a bad conclusion. If many animals became carnivores later, that means they EVOLVED, right? I guess Creationists deny evolution when it offends them and affirms it when it suits their purposes. That’s flatly dishonest.

 
Quote
As people began eating meat, they became even more dependent on vegetation as a source of food because the animals we eat all must consume multiple pounds of vegetation for each pound of meat produced.


Al Gore himself has called for people to eat less meat, and it is possible that over time more and more people will become vegetarian or vegan. But while the Old Testament laws forbid the eating of certain types of meat, they also calls for animal sacrifice as a regular religious ritual.

 
Quote
While it is true that harvesting of forest products should be done in line with intelligent use of that ecosystem, unless forests are periodically harvested, allowing new growth and providing a useful product, they have little direct economic benefit for mankind. As the human population increases then it is reasonable to convert forests to the production of food and building material. From a creation perspective there is nothing sacred about preserving forests. They are to be efficiently and effectively managed for the benefit of mankind. Nonetheless, there is little justification for the wanton destruction of forests for short-term economic benefit. As stewards accountable to God we should manage all earth resources with a long-term, biblical, perspective.


Unless you also beleive that Jesus will eventually return to save humanity from the anti-Christ. Then you can chop down forests at will and wait for Jesus to bail us out later.

 
Quote
It should also be noted that as plants began growing and covering the earth following Creation week, they were removing CO2 from the environment. Land plants removed CO2 from the atmosphere while marine plants removed CO2 from the ocean. In addition, marine animals that developed carbonate shells also removed CO2 from the ocean.


The Bible does not actually say any such thing.

 
Quote
God never rebuked mankind for mining, farming, ranching, or cutting trees for building projects. All of these activities are part of man’s God-given rule over the earth. Throughout Scripture, however, God has repeatedly rebuked man for disobedience to His moral commands.


People who lived thousands of years ago had no idea how limited the Earth really was or how tremendous their populations would eventually get. Hench their limited priorities, which they transmitted to their “Scripture” and put in God’s mouth.

 
Quote
The Flood likely increased the temperature of the ocean. As we will see later, a warm sea following the Flood helps explain another important post-Flood phenomena, the ice age.


Bull$#it. Ice ages have never been mentioned in the book of Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible.

 
Quote
At Creation and immediately after the Flood, plants were just beginning to cover the earth yet there was no shortage of oxygen in the atmosphere. God established enough oxygen in the original atmosphere to sustain life throughout the duration of the earth. This highlights the fact that plants are not necessary for generating oxygen.


Clearly, this moron does not know what a “fact” is. It is a confirmed observation. Where is the confirmed observation that plants are not necessary for generating oxygen? Actually, there would have been plants, including algae, in the oceans that could have continued to provide oxygen throughout the flood.

 
Quote
As an aside, during the Flood every man and animal on the ark would have been classified as an “endangered species” according to current definition. All animal life today is descended from one or a few pairs of animals that were carried on the ark.


If that is true, then all animals should indicate via their genomes a “bottleneck effect” showing that they are all descended from a very few ancestors recently. And by “all animal life” would that include fish, whales, crabs, and other animals that live in the oceans? Could the ark have held all of these species?

 
Quote
The argument over burning fossil fuels versus ethanol can be reduced to a question of whether it is best to burn old plants or new plants. Burning old plants (fossil fuels) is much more efficient, and therefore “green.”


This is sheer insanity. Ethanol comes from plants growing today that can be grown again and thus ethanol is a renewable resource. By contrast, coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, if they were made during the flood, are indeed nonrenewable. Coal is FAR more polluting than any other fuel, since it is full of impurities that ethanol produced by man from agriculture would not have.

 
Quote
Considering the total volume of fossil fuel captured in rocks, and the volume of carbonate rocks, it can be seen that a significant amount of CO2 has been removed from the pre-Flood environment (atmosphere and ocean) and locked up in sedimentary formations. Another significant volume of CO2 has been removed since the Flood and is tied up in plants and animals that have subsequently developed. As a result of burying a major proportion of earth’s plant and animal life, the Flood likely caused far greater changes to atmospheric gases than any current global warming scenario.


Strangly, most scientists would agree with this, except they would see the process as taking place over millions of years and due to many local floods rather than only one global flood.

 
Quote
Global warming is described as a worldwide catastrophe by the radical environmentalists and the media. The tribulation of Revelation certainly contains events that sound like some of the dire predictions associated with global warming. Unlike global warming, the tribulation is initiated directly by God, as judgment on sinful mankind, and is a sudden, not a gradual change. People undergoing the tribulation realize that it is from God, as a result of their sinful behavior, but they intentionally refuse to repent. We should not confuse the claims of global warming with tribulation events.


What a convenient disclaimer. I guess if you want to make a rationalization for Big Business to continue abusing the ecosystems of the world, this is a perfect example. I suppose they could have claimed that people would blame global warming for the disasters depicted in Revelation and thus refuse to repent, but that would have violated their own assumptions about people who do not follow their assumptions (because they claim such people are not only mistaken, but downright evil and stupid). Clearly, this writer didn’t think things through before he submitted this huge load of nonsense to Answers in Genesis. He was too obsessed with slandering opponents of Creationism.

 
Quote
God is in absolute control of His creation. He is the Creator (Genesis 1 and 2). God destroyed His creation in the days of Noah with a worldwide flood (Genesis 7–9). God sets the boundary for the seas (Job 38:8–11, Psalm 104:9, Jeremiah 5:22) and controls the weather: lightning (Job 28:26, 37:3), hail (Job 38:22, Psalm 147:17, Haggai 2:17), rain (Job 28:26, 37:6, Psalm 147:8), and snow (Job 37:6, 38:22, Psalm 147:16). Someday God will destroy this earth and establish a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1). Man is not in control of the weather and this present earth is temporary.


Is this writer sure he is not describing the gods of Hinduism? No wonder some Christian fundamentalists claim that AIDS, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters are punishments from God. With a sadistic God like this, who needs Satan?

The rest of that article is just more fallacious and downright fraudulant crap, repeating and detailing the earlier unsupported assertions, all based on the blind assumption that the statements in the Bible are all literally true. They also recycle many global warming denialist canards.

Date: 2011/07/05 22:24:00, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 05 2011,19:51)
Ray Martinez has appeared again.

Challenged me again.

Got pwned again.

Doesn't know what evolution is or how it works... again (or still).

Google Groups: Talk.origins

I wish idiots like Ray Martinez would stop crowing about "Darwinists". That is so 19th Century!

That and he is lying about being censored on Panda's Thumb. I saw him posting and his crap being kept there just the other day.

Date: 2011/07/09 20:20:14, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Oh, $#it. Now I gotta move Robin's last post over to the Global Warming thread too!

Date: 2011/07/09 20:24:37, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Robin @ July 08 2011,10:40)


Sorry to take so long to respond to this, Trubble - was away on a trip. Anywhooo...

   
Quote (Trubble @ June 30 2011,15:55)
   
Quote (Robin @ June 29 2011,09:35)
See...this kind of defensiveness is a real clue that you have an agenda. People without agendas merely ask, "what's a global warming denier?" and then discuss the concept. By immediately distancing yourself from the issue ('no really...I don't have a dog in this fight!!!') and at the same time calling us "zealots", you've tipped your hand.


Great. That's the very reaction I wanted to preempt. My fault, I probably should have approached the counter with more care, like George placing his order with the Soup Nazi.*


Funny. However, yet again you imply that in order to deal with this subject, we (the Global Warming Nazis) need to handled with defensively (that's what George did AND still didn't get any soup). Seems an odd way of being "neutral" on the subject. Just sayin'...

   
Quote
I used "you zealots" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the kind of person who would immediately see my questions as masking some kind of anti-science agenda. In retrospect, perhaps a bad choice of words, but I didn't actually think people here would be that sensitive.


Here's the thing - if you actually thought we wouldn't be "that sensitive" AND you didn't really have an agenda to poke the bear, you'd have just asked the question neutrally to...you know...start a neutral discussion. Folks who have been here for a long time can toss out tongue-in-cheek comments and get a chortle (or guffaw or giggle or even a reference to their mom**), but your opening with such as a way of introduction smells defensive right off the bat and really does scream "AGENDA!" Sorry if I misinterpreted your message, but that's the way it comes across.

   
Quote
My "agenda" was to try to elaborate the denier label. It seems to be thrown around pretty carelessly at times, so I was curious where people here draw the line. I gave specific examples in order to get specific answers, instead of generalities. Several people provided thoughtful answers. To them, thanks.


You're welcome.

   
Quote
My own view is that global warming is real, is serious, and is at least largely caused by human activity. But I also think drastic action is impractical right now, so we should be looking at what is realistically doable. I know some would label that view as "denial", which is why I asked.


Just  curious - why didn't you just state this in the first place?

I'm really shocked that anyone would find the above position to be one of denial in that you've not actually denied anything. Not that I don't recognize that there are people out there who are irrational and/or who don't actually take into account what someone actually writes or states, but I really can't believe the majority of folk dealing in this issue are that way. Of course, it has become rather political, so what do I know?

In any event, I certainly don't see the above as falling into the denial category. Seems rather straight forward to me.

   
Quote
Also for the record, I've been coming to this site almost daily for about five years, mainly for the funny and to keep up with the creationism issue, which I find fascinating. I just don't make posts, because I don't have any particular expertise in science, just a layman's interest and an undergrad anthro degree.


Good to know, though I'm sure you'll forgive those of us who don't know what lurkers are regulars. ;)

   
Quote
   
Quote
Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.


Well, I guess it's all relative. If you're sitting in a doctor's waiting room, an hour is "quite some time." Genetics research has been going on for about a century. It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s, making it a relatively new field (my stereo speakers are older than that). Yes, I misspoke to say it's in its early stages, but I still think there's a lot more work needed on some critically important questions.


Global Warming/Climate Change research has been going on since the 1930s. Guy Stewart Callendar did simple model calculations back in 1938 noting the contribution of CO2 to the increase in temperature. Helmut Lansberg expanded on this back in 1946. This isn't a relatively new field. People have gotten that impression since there was such a media frenzy around the subject in the 80s and because, unfortunately, human memory is short.

The real issue though is that most folks confuse Global Warming science with Global Warming policy. The former may well inspire a stance on the latter, but to blame the former for the need for the latter - as so many denialists seem to do - is just inane. Further, to try to equivocate the former with the latter - as the media and deninalists do with abandon - just makes those folks and their arguments look ignorant and petty.

I don't necessarily disagree that more research is warranted, but I do disagree with the reasons. There aren't any "critically important questions" from a scientific POV. There may well be some (likely a bunch) from a policy POV, but those are not going to be addressed by more research. Those questions can only be addressed by people sitting down and agreeing to discuss issues honestly and agreeing to make hard, fact-based decisions. Period. Whether man's energy use is a 98% factor in climate change or a 0.00342% fact is irrelevant to the question of whether we, as humans, determine that we can affect the current rate of change and whether it is in our interest to do so. The former is a scientific question, the latter is policy question.

   
Quote
     
Quote
Tsk tsk...


Do I feel chastened? Hmmmm... No.


Well, I was chastising you for not even doing a quick Google search before making a blanket claim. Given that you appeared defensive and appeared to have an agenda, it seemed that you were just making something up. Even though you apparently aren't starting from an agenda and are actually just a layman doesn't excuse not doing a rudimentary search. Research isn't limited to the professional scientists and really...in this day and age of information, it isn't hard just to check a few sources.

Here's one:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

   
Quote
* For the humour-impaired or terminally suspicious, no, I'm not comparing anyone here with Nazis. It's just a Seinfeld reference. You could look it up.


** For Louis or Arden

Date: 2011/07/15 11:39:14, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Trubble @ July 13 2011,10:43)
I was aware of Arrhenius, thanks. He was the first to posit the link between human-generated CO2 and climate change. But his theory was not accepted by the mainstream for many decades.

Some excerpts from the wikipedia pages mentioned above:

   
Quote
While a few early 20th-Century scientists supported Arrhenius' work, including E. O. Hulburt and Guy Stewart Callendar, most scientific opinion disputed or ignored it through the early 1950s.


and

   
Quote
In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate, but the calculations were disputed. In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists increasingly thought that human activity could change the climate on a timescale of decades, but were unsure whether the net impact would be to warm or cool the climate. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. In the 1980s the consensus position formed that human activity was in the process of warming the climate...


...which is why I called it a relatively new field (keep in mind what "relatively" means -- it's not an absolute) and why I referenced the 1980s as when things got serious. On reflection, I was probably off by a decade or so.

I'm mostly interested in the nuts and bolts elements of the work, less than the theoretical underpinnings. Such as the development of reliable models that could tell us, for example, if we reduce CO2 emissions to x level, it will have y effect on sea levels, precipitation, glacier formation, or whatever. It seems to me that work is still at a relatively early stage. But I could well be ignorant about the latest developments.

Did it ever occur to you that giant oil companies, like the supermassive Standard Oil of J. D. Rockerfeller, were trying to interfer with scientific studies that threatened their economic interests even a century ago? Indeed, it was so powerful that the U S government forced it to break up. And we have evidence that ExxonMobil, a direct descendant of Standard Oil, has been funding global warming denialist groups in recent years.

Date: 2011/07/16 04:18:50, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Trubble @ July 15 2011,12:57)
 
Quote (Dale_Husband @ July 15 2011,11:39)
Did it ever occur to you that giant oil companies, like the supermassive Standard Oil of J. D. Rockerfeller, were trying to interfer with scientific studies that threatened their economic interests even a century ago? Indeed, it was so powerful that the U S government forced it to break up. And we have evidence that ExxonMobil, a direct descendant of Standard Oil, has been funding global warming denialist groups in recent years.


I didn't know about Standard Oil trying to interfere with science a century ago, but that doesn't surprise me, given what I've read about the robber barons. Do you have a reference? I'm curious to see what studies they tried to quash.

I certainly was aware that the oil companies have given money to global warming denialists. That's well documented.

But what does that have to do with what I posted?

No direct evidence, merely an inference based on what you said and on what I know about the obscenely powerful robber barons themselves. Indeed, I was asking a rhetorical question, not making an assertion.

My point, of course, is that we must always be wary of corporate interference in both scientific research and the communication of such research to the public.

Date: 2011/08/07 00:46:42, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Maybe David Mabus could join with these wackos and form a music/comedy act:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG042nkReBA

Date: 2011/08/08 02:46:41, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (Ftk @ July 26 2011,20:00)
I KNOW 98% of you agree with me, but you're too bloody stubborn to ever admit it, because God forbid you agree with FtK (gasp!).

Making assumptions like that about your opponents only makes you look dumber than usual. People don't disagree with you because they hate you, they (probably) hate you because they disagree with you. As for me, I just think you are stupid, period. Hate doesn't even become an issue unless you make death threats like David Mabus does.

Date: 2011/11/05 10:32:25, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
No forgiveness from me!

http://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2011.......redited
Quote



Climate “skeptic” attempting damage control after being discredited

It should have been obvious from the 1990s onward that global warming was indeed real and that human activities were chiefly to blame, but many who were entrenched in conservative or libertarian political positions found those conclusions offensive and a threat to their interests, hence the ever-present attacks by climate change “skeptics” who would do everything they could to cast doubt on the evidence regarding the issue. They did that instead of examining their political positions, which a true skeptic should have done!

Now one of them, Richard Muller, has changed sides, but is still trying to justify his earlier attitude. That’s an example of a “notpology“, which is dishonest.

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic....05.html

 
Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate,” a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

<snip>

“The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,” Muller said in a telephone interview. “And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.”

Muller said that he came into the study “with a proper skepticism,” something scientists “should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism” before.
 (Emphasis mine)


That is bullcrap. If Muller was wrong before, he was certainly wrong a decade ago, so why not just say that and leave his ego out of it? Scientists, including proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis, have to be responsible skeptics to do their work at all and prove it by subjecting their findings to peer review, and it was the peer review process that made that hypothesis credible in the first place. Saying otherwise as Muller is doing is slander.

http://www.dictionaryslang.com/notpolo....tpology

 
Quote
An apology that doesnt ACTUALLY apologise, but is simply given to make the evil person LOOK/feel better.

Date: 2011/12/05 18:58:29, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Hey, what happened to the Panda's Thumb blog?! I can no longer see it with my web browser; did it cease to exist after last night?

Date: 2011/12/05 19:14:51, Link
Author: Dale_Husband
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 05 2011,19:02)
Dale - I have trouble too.  But I am not worried, it's been down before.  If you are a good Evo source, and comabt the evils of ID and/ theocracy, sometimes you get cyber-attacked.

You are not worried about possible vandalism? If this was someone's house or car being wrecked, would you be so nonchalant about it? I think websites like Panda's Thumb are just as valuble. Property is property.

 

 

 

=====