Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Do bad things happen to Christians because they are bad?

My mom broke her wrist.   Fortunately, it was not in the most intricate portion of the wrist but was actually a little ways up the forearm, the radius and ulnar, which broke clean.   The surgery patched her up and she was out of the hospital same day.  Pretty sure that was last Sunday.

Then I injured my frayed MCL in my right knee.   It is a chronic knee injured mostly playing basketball (funny how I never had a major football injury but had several basketball injuries.  Weird).  So now I was limping around in pain.  That was Monday.

Then somebody let their dogs run loose and my wife was walking our dogs down a steep hill when loose dogs appeared.   Debbie tried to fall on her butt in the grass and yank the dogs back while shouting commands but they were too quick and she hit the sidewalk with her right knee.   Thankfully nothing broken but the knee was badly scraped and swollen.   So she got medications, a full-leg brace and  crutches.   That happened on Wednesday.  

So then this Sunday some guy in a truck ran over our son, Nathan, when he was riding a bike to work.   Usually my wife would drive him to his Sunday job but she couldn't drive and I was hurting so he decided to just ride his bike, which he does on nice days at times.   Imagine having a police officer show up Sunday morning before 7:30 AM and tell you that a truck hit your son, he had head injuries and had bled a lot?!

So I drove my wife and myself to the emergency room.   She was on crutches and I was limping badly so we probably looked like patients but we were there for Nathan.   Even though he actually had the imprint of the truck logo on the back of his neck, he somehow avoided internal injuries or broken bones.   Twelve staples and special superglue patched up the cuts on his head.   He had left large patches of skin on the road.  He is a walking sore, poor guy.   But the truck couldn't break him.   The bike?  Not so good. 

Therefore I was ignoring my injured knee and doing things for hurt family members until my MCL got so bad I couldn't hardly walk.   So with all this going on I have not been blogging.  I am trying to get my pain level down enough to work.   Thought I would share something with readers.

My body has been broken a lot.  Three ruptured discs in my back, permanent nerve damage in my right leg and foot.  Completely crushed and rebuilt left shoulder and collarbone.  Broken ankle.  Not even sure how many ribs broken since some of them broke more than once but a dozen or so.  Huge tumor that wrapped around and went through muscles so that my left shoulder had to be cut open and muscles cut and then attached again.  Auto accidents, factory accidents, attempted murder, sports injuries.   So many ligament and cartilage injuries, so many scars all over my body.   Anyway, now I take more drugs just to function than most people can take without passing out.   My blood pumps controlled substances as a matter of course.  Not to be high, but rather to be able to walk and think and be functional.

My wife had her head split open like a melon and has a scar you cannot see that runs pretty much straight down the middle.  She had miscarriages and needed to be cut open to produce her babies.   Once a horse smashed her knee into a post so hard she was on crutches for six months.   Yes, the same knee she just hurt.  She also has sciatica to an extent.  

I was a bad man before I became a Christian.   My wife was younger when she was born again, but she was definitely a druggy back then.  Are we paying for our younger indescretions?   No, I really don't believe that at all.  Every single person has indescretions/sins.   We are often just selfish or greedy, sometimes jealous, sometimes hedonistic, sometimes angry or vengeful...human beings know how to sin.

In the Book of Job, the title character was a well-known man with much money, many children and many animals and servants.   Because of various events, he loses all family other than his wife, he loses riches and children, he loses his health and is in pain and misery.   He spends much of the book defending his righteousness as his friends point out that God would not let such bad things happen to a good man.   He was urged to admit his sin.  Job kept calling upon God to tell him his fault and explain the injustice of his condition but he refused to curse God.   After several "comforters" give him the standard belief (everything that happens under the Sun is a result of your personal righteousness and diligence.  Good comes to good people and bad things happen to bad people).

Finally God comes to talk directly to Job and in doing so describes to Job His various works - the Universe, the Earth, the living beings found thereupon - and Job sees that his own righteousness is completely insufficient to compare to God's righteousness and glory.   Job repents and realizes that God had given him life and opportunity but was not obligated to guarantee Job's success or failure.  Job sees the real value in faith in God and withdraws every charge he'd laid at God's feet.   Actually, it was the enemy of God, Satan, that had brought disaster to Job in an attempt to make Job curse God and abandon faith.   Job would not do it.  Job had a lesson to learn and it was hard, but he did learn.  We do not serve God to gain earthly things.  We worship God because He is awesome and deserves to be honored.   It is a privilege to serve a Great God who is both Creator and Redeemer.   Job did come to understand and I do, too.   Knowing God is worth whatever price there is to pay.

We live in a world that is full of sin.   Because Adam and Eve sinned, then sin and death came to the world and we all must suffer from this.   There will be accidents and there will be evil.   There is a law of reaping and sowing - if you work hard, you most likely succeed, if you goof off you probably don't.   If you are faithful in marriage you will not get an STD as long as your mate is also faithful.  If you drive carefully you probably won't be in an accident - unless some careless person smashes into you.   Sometimes while driving down a highway I consider that each new car coming down the road could suddenly swerve into my path and quite possibly kill me and everyone with me.   Usually we all stay in our lanes and avoid smashing each other.

I'm not mad at God.  I am so happy Nathan got run over by a truck and is relatively unscathed!   We were rejoicing that Debbie's leg wasn't broken, that Nathan had somehow even avoided a concussion, that my mom could have an easy operation and that I can probably get by without surgery.   Sometimes it is about the attitude.   I know that my sins make me eligible for death and hell.   I don't deserve anything good at all.  Doing my best to do God's will doesn't guarantee a better paycheck.

It makes me mad when pseudo-preachers try to get people to send money to THEM so that the people will get money from God.  Give to get?  Blab it, grab it?   It makes me mad when a pseudo-preacher tells people that "they need more faith" in order to be healed or for a family member to be healed.   More often than not that same guy will have a hand out asking for money at the end of it all.  

God is not obligated to bless me.  I hope He does bless me and I am thankful when He does bless me.   I believe God led me to enter this business knowing I would be smashed so badly I'd need a job I could do from home that would still support a big house and a lot of people.   I believe God helped me find my wife, my soul mate and love, the person I wanted to be with my entire life but it had to be after getting my Masters in the college of hard knocks.   I now own a Doctorate.   I have a doctorate in pain, dumb decisions, strange experiences, sharing the pain of others, helping others, being betrayed,  being blessed, knowing love, having children, being under great stress, unbearable physical pain, excruciating emotional pain, epiphanies, miracles, friends...life.   God is not obligated to bless me but I am still blessed.  He gave me life.   I have lived, loved, raised children and have grandchildren coming down the road.   I am entering the last third of my life.  I could die today and feel as if I have lived a full and satisfying life. 

We do not know God's overall plan.  He wants to bring all humans to repentance.  My life on Earth is a tiny aspect of a massive long-range plan to bring humans to a knowledge of God.   

Once the pain is better and everyone is settled I will make another regular blog post.   Right now it is hard to deal with all the things going down.  With the pain comes some focus.   One of the major problems Darwinists have is that they do not understand (or choose to ignore) what Creationists teach.   Thus, many questions are not actually relevant.   So I realize I need to fix that.   But getting to the place I can work effectively comes first. 

If you are having tough times or good times, I hope you will find your personal compass and your moral foundation will hold firm.   I know Jesus Christ has placed my feet upon a Rock of Salvation.   In the end this is what matters.

104 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

"One of the major problems Darwinists have is that they do not understand (or choose to ignore) what Creationists teach."

I'm pretty sure you're saying the Universe was created about 6,000 years ago, there was a global flood about 4,000 years ago, there was no common descent from a common ancestor...

It's funny for you to ponder this when you've misstated so much of what modern science actually says.

Anyway, hope you get better soon.

Anonymous said...

"We do not know God's overall plan. He wants to bring all humans to repentance. My life on Earth is a tiny aspect of a massive long-range plan to bring humans to a knowledge of God."

Now go back to the first sentence:

"We do not know God's overall plan."

So what makes you think you know God's plan?

Lista said...

This is a Very Good Post, Radar. Short Enough to Read and Excellent in it's Content. Thanks.

Anonymous Whatsit,
I Think what Radar Means is that Darwinists do not Understand what Creationists/Christians Teach about the Meaning of Life and How God Loves you.

Anonymous,
Our Knowledge is Limited, but not Totally Absent. We can have some Knowledge of God, even though the Knowledge is not Complete. Here is the Scripture that comes to Mind.

"8) Charity never faileth; but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9) For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11) When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13) And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (1 Corinthians 13:8-13, KJV).

AmericanVet said...

God's overall plan in detail is unknown to me. His overall plan in essence is to bring man back to fellowship with Him. That we know. I know the areas he gifted me with abilities I can use to forward his overall plan. What I should have said was that I do not know all the details of God's plan. I don't know when I will die, whether a tree will fall on my garage, how many grandchildren I will have, stuff like that.

Christians know God wants us to spread the Word to give people an opportunity to receive Christ and have fellowship with God. We might even know we are supposed to work with teens, or be a pastor, or a missionary. But the day-by-day and minute-to-minute happenings of life have no guarantees. I can be doing what I should be doing and get run over by a drunk driver.

AmericanVet said...

"I'm pretty sure you're saying the Universe was created about 6,000 years ago, there was a global flood about 4,000 years ago, there was no common descent from a common ancestor.."

That part is true. It may have been around 6500 years ago and the Flood was about 4300 years ago. The Bible has been saying that for thousands of years.

What secular science says keeps changing. You depend on man's limited knowledge and it doesn't stay the same. In the last 500 years secular science has changed its mind on pretty much every single subject you can name. Also, the foundational findings of science have been built largely on Christians and theists. Science decided the world must be logical because God must be logical, then began testing for logical solutions. Now atheists and atheopaths have colluded to turn secular science into a propaganda machine until it is one big joke.

AmericanVet said...

Also, Darwinists twist or do not understand the Creationist teaching on the Flood and post-Flood scenario nor the concept of natural selection, a term coined by a Christian to describe the conservation of kind mechanism built into organisms. Darwinists have it all completely backwards. Organisms adapt to environmental changes using pre-existing information. Mutations and allopatric speciation damage the genome and information is lost. Therefore some animals go extinct altogether.

We will not see the DoDo again, nor the Allosaurus nor probably never see the Passenger Pigeon. Mammoths are likely gone for good. We have doubts about ever finding a living Trilobite. But it is not because they evolved into something else, it is because they died out.

Lista said...

This is Key, just in Case they Missed it.

"Organisms adapt to environmental changes using pre-existing information. Mutations and allopatric speciation damage the genome and information is lost."

Anonymous said...

"Organisms adapt to environmental changes using pre-existing information. Mutations and allopatric speciation damage the genome and information is lost."

It may be "key", but it's also speculative. What you have here is the inkling of a hypothesis. Evolution consists of both the use of existing information and the creation of new information through mutations and chemical processes. What you're claiming is the complete and utter exclusion of the latter part, and this is already falsified by the fact that we have seen exactly such things occurring.

Mutations don't always damage the genome, and when a mutation has beneficial effects and is therefore preserved through natural selection, that amounts to new information having been created.

Anonymous said...

"What secular science says keeps changing."

That's really downplaying the achievements of "secular science". (BTW, all modern science is secular, regardless of the religion of whoever came up with the scientific method - the method itself doesn't involve God, and so it is secular.)

Science doesn't just "keep changing", it provides explanations that are more and more in line with observable evidence. And that's a good thing.

"You depend on man's limited knowledge and it doesn't stay the same."

Man's limited knowledge is all we have, Radar. You'll point at a religious text and claim that it is God's word, but that is only taken on faith. If the Bible featured some knowledge that is not in line with "man's limited knowledge" of the time, that would be a different story. At no point is the Bible ahead of man's scientific understanding of the time.

"In the last 500 years secular science has changed its mind on pretty much every single subject you can name."

It has made progress on pretty much every single subject you can name. Do you really want to go back 500 years and remain at that level of scientific knowledge? Personally, I prefer all the advances we enjoy because of scientists "changing their minds" as you so denigratingly put it.

"Also, the foundational findings of science have been built largely on Christians and theists. Science decided the world must be logical because God must be logical, then began testing for logical solutions."

It's pretty irrelevant whether they decided that the world is logical because they thought their deity was logical or whether they decided that the world is logical because that's what simple observation already tells them - what matters is that the method works in providing us with scientific advances.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the scientific method that these "Christians and theists" came up with at no point involves supernatural explanations. They were firm adherents to methodological naturalism.

"Now atheists and atheopaths have colluded to turn secular science into a propaganda machine until it is one big joke."

Sour grapes much? Because scientific findings don't confirm an outdated creation myth?

If you (or any creationist) could actually falsify current scientific understanding on the basis of observable evidence, you wouldn't have to complain about the referee all the time.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
"It may be 'key', but it's also speculative."

Everything about Science is Speculative, Anonyomous. Science Doesn't Prove Anything. It Only Confirms and Confirmation is both Subjective and Speculative. Science is Way more Speculative than Science Lovers are Willing to Admit.

The Actual Creation of Information has Never been Observed, Only Evidence that Leads to that Speculative Conclusion. The Loss of Information has been Observed. Just as, when you Breed Samoyed's, the Information Leading to Black Fur is no Longer Present within the Breed.

"Man's limited knowledge is all we have, Radar."

That's Only True if there is no God. It also Requires Faith to Believe in the Speculative Claims of Science, as they Attempt to Explain Evidence in a Speculative Way. Scientists Guess all the Time and are not Willing to Admit the Extent to which they do so.

"At no point is the Bible ahead of man's scientific understanding of the time."

Apparently you haven't Read Radar's Post, Is the Bible Scientifically Correct?.

It is Time for Scientists to Change their Minds about the Idea of Creation. If you Think that there is no Observable Evidence for Creationism, then you have not done much Reading of their Materials with an Opened Mind.

Lista said...

Here is an Example of a Speculative Assumption that has been Accepted by Geologists, but more Recently has been Challenged. Below is the First Paragraph of the Definition of Uniformitarianism...

"In the philosophy of naturalism, the uniformitarianism assumption is that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that 'the present is the key to the past' and functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism."

So here is a Clear Example of not Fact, but an ASSUMPTION, that has been Taken for Granted for Years. Science is Speculative, Anonymous. That is all of it, not just Creationism.

Jon Woolf said...

"The Actual Creation of Information has Never been Observed, Only Evidence that Leads to that Speculative Conclusion."

False.

"Everything about Science is Speculative, Anonyomous."

No. Everything about science is conditional: reasoning based on the evidence we have and on the assumption that we aren't missing some essential piece of the puzzle. When we find that we were missing some important piece, science is rewritten to meet the new evidence.

This, of course, is something that creationism never, ever does. And that's why creationism isn't science.

"Here is an Example of a Speculative Assumption that has been Accepted by Geologists, but more Recently has been Challenged."

Not by anyone who matters.

AmericanVet said...

Jon, you are not an authority. Science uses both inductive and deductive reasoning. When we must use forensic scientific methods then both Darwinists and Creationists are forced to speculate. Creation science, like Darwinist science, begins with assumptions and studies evidence and changes details of what is supposed to be true as new evidence emerges.

Darwinists have had to back and fill as the eternal universe and uniformitarianism and protoplasm were dismissed. They've had to drop vestigal organs and junk DNA and admit that ERVs are not actually ERVs but are a designed part of the system...well, some of them have admitted this anyway.

Irreducible complexity has baffled many Darwinists and they are reduced (pun) to comparing less complex systems and proposing that said systems evolved up to more advanced ones but with no evidence to show for it and never observing it happening.

Frankly when it comes to the fossil rocks I think Darwinists are just matching the bets and bluffing, hoping no one calls them because a close look at the rock layers reveals they just aren't what textbooks claim.

Creation scientists have made many new discoveries and adjusted some thoughts on the Flood and post-Flood events. It was a creation scientist who discovered rapid plate subduction, which explains much of the rock layers seen now, the jigsaw puzzle nature of our continents and even the occasional drowned sections of land found deep below the sea and beneath the sediments of the sea floor.

Creation science discovered Carmelian theory. Creation science coined the phrase. "natural selection." A creationist discovered genetics. For that matter, much of science stands on the shoulders of creationists like Newton and Maxwell. To suggest that only Darwinists own science is like saying that Toyotas are the only automobiles. There are lots of them, but they are not necessarily the best and they certainly were not among the first or foundational.

Jon Woolf said...

"Jon, you are not an authority."

[snork] Much closer am I to such status than you, young padawan. I did, after all, take the time to actually learn something about these topics.

"Creation science, like Darwinist science, begins with assumptions "

And (entirely unlike "Darwinist" science) ends with assumptions too: the assumption that the Bible is literally true, every word, and if the evidence disagrees with the Bible then the evidence must be twisted, distorted, manipulated, and (when all else fails) simply ignored, in order to keep that assumption intact.

AmericanVet said...

I cannot consider brainwashing to be learning. Jon, you are great at repeating the company line on every subject and ignoring other evidence. You summarily dismiss things that should give you pause. That the rock records are simply nothing like you assert and that life is so incredibly complex, interlocked in symbiosis, full of information and programs and software and hardware and meta information and pre-built switching mechanisms that the thought of billions of organisms all evolving from one or even one million simple microorganisms is absolutely ludicrous and statistically impossible.

All people have to do is study the human body and the cell. There are chicken-and-egg processes all over, there are symbiotic relationships that are necessary for both microbe and man, there are literally billions of systems running tasks every second all over your body. You cannot separate out and identify "life." You cannot account for the information in the cell. You cannot find a way the components of the cell could have happened in the natural world because it is chemically impossible. DNA had to be designed and made to exist, it had to be programmed before it would operate and it needed the cell within which to operate as well. All of these actions require the ATP motor to produce the energy to do them, an ATP motor that must use ATP to produce DNA which much use ATP and exist within a cell that runs on ATP but the ATP engine is built by the interaction of cell and DNA.

Really, the game should be over. The ignorance of the masses allows Darwinism to thrive. If they understood the hard barriers to so-called "chemical evolution" (just spontaneous generation with a new name), if they knew all the complexity of the cell and DNA, if they understood the remarkable photosynthesis system of plants and tried to imagine how it could evolve, which it simply couldn't, then I wouldn't blame them for running professors out of universities with pitchforks and torches, because the deliberate teaching of Darwnist lies has dumbed down science, slowed progress and certainly been a menace to society.

I wonder how many babies have been murdered because Darwinists and Eugenicists decided that the life of a baby had no worth? How long before they decide people over 75 years old have no worth? After all, take away God and there goes the Judeo-Christian ethic and then anything goes. We see society drifting into paganism and immorality as the church gives up on its own standards and chooses Hawking over Moses and Dawkins over Christ.

AmericanVet said...

Also, Jon and various anonymous hot dogs, you do not speak for "science." You mostly sound like axiomatic paganists like the Greeks rather than Baconian science of testing and observation and hypothesis. Francis Bacon perfected methodological investigation and, were he your tutor, would give all of you an "F" until you took the "naturalistic" out of your science, for it limits the possibilities and defies logic.

The great scientists of the past primarily acknowledged God, some seeing Him as somewhat impersonal but most seeing Him as both personal and involved in their very research.

You want a geologist? Try Tas Walker. He actually knows the subject and certainly has the acronyms to prove it. The forerunner of the modern creation science movement had a doctorate in hydrology and was highly esteemed. Dr. Henry Morris formed ICR. Then came AIG and Creation.com and soon creation scientists began popping up all over. Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Guillermo Gonzalez, Danny Faulkner, David Coppedge, Lita Costner, Alex Williams, John Woodmrappe, Ian Juby, Karl Priest, and all sorts of others all over the world.

We will not be silent and we will keep telling the truth. Being snarked at by Woolf means I am doing something right.

Anonymous said...

Re. your last two posts, Radar/AmericanVet, you start off with a massive argument from incredulity (logical fallacy) that makes it clear that you haven't taken the time to understand what current scientific understanding actually is before railing against it.

Then a smear that has about as much basis in reality as if we were to jam the Spanish Inquisition down your throat.

Then the claim that without Christianity everything would fall apart. Humans had basic morality in place before Christians (monotheism in general) came along. I wonder what Jesus would make of your bigoted attitude towards secular humanists, who incidentally are not the devil's spawn, if you ever took the time to familiarize yourself with their beliefs.

Anonymous said...

"Francis Bacon perfected methodological investigation and, were he your tutor, would give all of you an "F" until you took the "naturalistic" out of your science, for it limits the possibilities and defies logic."

Nonsense. Bacon used methodological naturalism in his work, pure and simple.

"The great scientists of the past primarily acknowledged God, some seeing Him as somewhat impersonal but most seeing Him as both personal and involved in their very research. "

And yet they kept the supernatural out of their research, seeing as it's a dead end.

Anonymous said...

"You want a geologist? Try Tas Walker. He actually knows the subject and certainly has the acronyms to prove it."

If the links in the post after this one are any indication (and I suspect they are), he's dead in the water already. A few generalized articles that gloss over the inconvenient fact that his "biblical geological model" utterly fails to address observable data.

All the acronyms in the world aren't going to make that "little problem" go away.

Anonymous said...

"We will not be silent and we will keep telling the truth."

The former is obvious, the latter not true.

"Being snarked at by Woolf means I am doing something right."

Poor logic there, Radar.

You see, it's also possible that Woolf snarks at you because you loudly proclaim a long string of untruths.

Woolf (and others) have pointed out numerous inconsistencies and problems with your claims that you can't respond to. That's not a reason to pat yourself on the back.

BTW, even with Sarfati's help, you STILL can't respond to Woolf's simple questions? Well, as long as you're "doing something right"... :-)

Jon Woolf said...

"You want a geologist? Try Tas Walker. He actually knows the subject and certainly has the acronyms to prove it. "

Really? Doesn't look like it to me. His own CV says that he has a Bachelor's degree in Earth Science - not the same thing as Geology - and Master's and PhD in engineering. His work experience was as a geological engineer -- fine work, difficult work, that does require knowing something about geology but does not require knowing anything about historical geology, and doesn't expose you to any of the finer aspects of isotope dating, sedimentology, etc.

Thus, on the topic of historical geology, he and I start out even. We're both amateurs.

Anonymous whatsit said...

... which explains why Walker didn't even get close to an alternative model to explain the data.

Wishful thinking is so strong in creationists that it blinds them to everything else.

AmericanVet said...

If Tas Walker's explanation was over your head, admit it rather than mock him. Whatsit likely knows less about geology than Woolf or myself, let along Walker.

Darwinists twist evidence to cram it into their theories. For instance, the Big Bang premise has about 95-96% fudge factors! Darwinists renamed spontaneous generation and are trying to prove the impossible in sharp contrast to accepted science. Law of Biogenesis didn't go anywhere and there is NO evidence at all to make anyone doubt the veracity of that law other than a need to try to wiggle out of a trap.

If life cannot come from natural causes then there was a Designer. If irreducibly complex systems exist, Designer. If information is input into the cell, Designer again. Real science has identified design, information, systems, motors, all sorts of systems and processes that depend on the existence of the cell and DNA. You Darwinists can hoot and sputter and hide your eyes but you never get close to explaining these basics of organisms.

Real science is studying organisms and learning from them. Thus, biomimetics, biomimicry, nanoengineering are among the operational sciences that try to copy the more efficient and brilliant designs of the Creator and apply them to human purposes. Spider silk is still stronger than anything we can make. The gecko foot is fabulously efficient and we are using a lesser imitation to good use. Wing design and wing patterns in flight are studied to apply to drones and other craft. Algorithms found in various creatures are emulated. Computer technology is trying to bring God's designed software into the world of IT.

Bottom line, while Darwinists are pretending they are making progress in doing the impossible (for man), Real scientists are learning from God and bringing us new technologies. This is nothing new. The Wright Brothers studied birds. Radar was inspired by bats and their echolocation systems. Studying whales was part of the design of more sophisticated submarines.

Studying and learning from God's designs and organisms has advanced the knowledge of mankind. Darwinism has led mankind into ditch after ditch. Darwinism is bad for science and bad for society. We'd all benefit from a scientific community that acknowledged the design of organisms and the Earth and the Solar System and the Universe and use that basic thought to proceed forward. This was the mantra of the great scientists of the past and many of those working today. Some of them dare not admit to it lest they lose their jobs. It is tyranny and censorship that keeps Darwinism alive.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"If Tas Walker's explanation was over your head, admit it rather than mock him."

As Anonymous pointed out on the next post, Tas Walker's writings (at least the parts you linked to) don't address large chunks of observable data. The model simply ignores them. Do you think that this makes it a strong, supportable, confirmed model?

On the one hand you have a model (conventional modern geology, the theory of evolution, an old Earth) that fits the evidence (sorting of fossils in rock layers, radiometric data), and you have another (the so-called biblical geological model) that completely ignores that evidence.

Any open-minded scientist would see that one of these models fits the available evidence and one of them doesn't.

Anonymous whatsit said...

As for the rest of your diatribe, good grief, how many times have these points been addressed? (At least to the point that they were even coherent... what's this about "Computer technology is trying to bring God's designed software into the world of IT"?)

Lista said...

I Guess I'll Start by Including an Additional Link. Earlier I Left the Link to one of Radar's Earlier Posts. Well, it just so Happens that I Copy Pasted a Small Part of that Post, the Part at the End of it that I especially Liked. Here is the Link to that...

Can you Loosen Orion's Belt?

Woolf,
"Everything about science is conditional; reasoning based on the evidence we have and on the assumption that we aren't missing some essential piece of the puzzle."

Notice that you Included the Word, "Assumption" in your Response. Assumptions are Speculative.

Here is a Post that I did on Baraminology and their Current Definition of the Word, "Kind", which Contains a Current Definition that has been Changed to Fit with the Current Evidence.

Baraminology, Biological Classification and Definitions

"'Here is an Example of a Speculative Assumption that has been Accepted by Geologists, but more Recently has been Challenged.' Not by anyone who matters."

I Was Basing that Statement on the Definition of Unformitarianism from the Wikipedia, as I Quoted in my 1:50 PM Comment Above. Here is the Last Sentence from the Quote again.

"Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism."

Very Good Comment, American Vet. Here's a Sentence Worth Repeating...

"A close look at the rock layers reveals they just aren't what textbooks claim."

I also Liked your Last Paragraph (5:22 PM)

Lista said...

Woolf, 7:16 PM,
"'Creation science, like Darwinist science, begins with assumptions.' And (entirely unlike 'Darwinist' science) ends with assumptions too."

In Bold is the Part of this that is Untrue. This has nothing to do with the Bible, Woolf. More Often, then not, it is the Evolutionists that Bring up the Bible in the Midst of a Scientific Discussion, not the Creationists. They do this as a Distraction from the Scientific Part of the Discussion.

American Vet, 9:50 & 10:00 PM,
Nice Hypocrisy Call on Woolf. Your Comments Keep Getting Better and Better.

Anonymous, 1:13 AM,
My Dictionary Defines Incredulity as Disbelief and Skepticism, not Logical Fallacy. You haven't even Taken the Time to Understand the Words you Use. What Radar/American Vet said is most Definitely Based in Reality and for you to say otherwise does not Change that Fact.

Secular Humanists do not Acknowledge God. They basically Worship the Self, rather then the Creator and therefore, run Counter to Christianity. Within the Realm of Psychology, Secular Humanism Claims that Man is Basically Good, yet the Bible says the Opposite, for we are Born with a Sin Nature that we Need to be Redeemed from. To Disagree with an Idea, though, is not the Same as Bigotry. That is an Unfounded Accusation.

1:24 AM,
"Woolf (and others) have pointed out numerous inconsistencies and problems with your claims that you can't respond to."

That Claim is a Hypocrisy because the same is True of Evolutionists, just as American Vet Addressed in his Next Comment (8:34 AM).

Anonymous Whatsit, 3:18 AM,
"Wishful thinking is so strong in creationists that it blinds them to everything else."

This is a Hypocrisy as well.

Go American Vet!! Yes, Indeed "It is tyranny and censorship that keeps Darwinism alive."

You Know, you Guys, if you Prefer Copy Pasting Links, rather then Clicking on them, here they are again...

http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2011/06/constalations-orion-pleiades.html

http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2011/06/baraminology-current-biased-biological.html

Jon Woolf said...

Wow, does Radar's boot really taste that good, Lista?

You know, the other day I ran across an old link that reminded me of both of you:

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/marty5.htm

Now, even before you look at that link, I know exactly how you'll both react. Radar will bluster about how those six guys were just part of the 'Darwinist' conspiracy, and you'll flutter your hands in the air and weep copiously about how those drunken evolutionists were so nasty and mean and rude to that virtuous upright Christian minister and his loyal flock. Neither one of you will recognize the actual meaning of the story.

No, it's not "don't annoy a bunch of beer-buzzed rockhounds," although that's certainly true enough. It's this: anyone who knows much about geology has exactly the same reaction to young earth creationism as Marty Leipzig and his pals did. YEC is a joke. That's all. It's logically worthless because it assumes its conclusion, and it's factually worthless because it doesn't explain the evidence. Radar's bluster is merely cover for the fact that he knows YEC can't explain the evidence. It's been a year and a half since I first found this blog, and he still continues to evade numerous questions I asked way back then.

YEC is a joke. So are you.

AmericanVet said...

Woolf, since you cannot use evidence to win the argument you insult ladies? Cretins indeed! So you are an ungentlemanly brainwashed blowhard masquerading as an expert.


Darwinists have called me lots of names but Lista is a lady so I hope all of your Darwinist buddies see your lack of class and disown you. Or else you will come to your senses, apologize for your rudeness and regain some measure of stature in this site. For now your name is mud.

Let me tell you about human footprints. Don Patton believed that Glen Kuban of talkorigins destroyed part of the Taylor trackway. He challenged Kuban to take a polygraph and offered him money to do it, and Kuban refused. Was it Kuban that smashed the track or someone else? Since Kuban wouldn't take the polygraph we do not know. But witnesses put him on the river with an iron bar on the day of destruction. Kuban could come, take the polygraph and, if cleared, Patton would pay him for his time and travel. Kuban won't do it.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail-glen-kuban-slanderous-accusations-refuted-fabricated-rumor.htm

Now there is the Delk track that was tested carefully by all sorts of different means and it shows a human and a dinosaur track together. No Glen Kubans can get to this track.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/05/difference-between-science-and.html

So hey, man, don't eat the yellow snow and have another hit on that joint, bro! Try going into a typical Texas bar and talking to ladies that way and see how far they throw you out the door! Jerk.

I proudly served in the US Army and even back in the 'Nam era we didn't put up with guys who mistreated and badmouthed women. Maybe you need someplace else to go?

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

More Often, then not, it is the Evolutionists that Bring up the Bible in the Midst of a Scientific Discussion, not the Creationists. They do this as a Distraction from the Scientific Part of the Discussion.

Say whaaat?

You know, I don't think I've ever seen a single link on this blog to Answers in Genesis or one of those sites that didn't mention the Bible and tried to use scripture itself as scientific evidence. I think it's fair to say that the majority of the articles there drag the Bible into the discussion, though admittedly I don't know if you can call it a "scientific" discussion.

On the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen a scientific paper by an "Evolutionist" that brought up the Bible. Maybe there are some out there, but I've never seen one.

Perhaps you're talking about blog discussions as such, but even there, creationists talk about the Bible and religion almost non-stop, so it's unlikely that "Evolutionists" have to introduce the subject.

Could you name some examples?

Anonymous said...

"My Dictionary Defines Incredulity as Disbelief and Skepticism, not Logical Fallacy. You haven't even Taken the Time to Understand the Words you Use."

*facepalm*

Okay Lista...

Now look up not just the individual words, but "argument from incredulity"...

For example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

Anonymous said...

"That Claim is a Hypocrisy because the same is True of Evolutionists, just as American Vet Addressed in his Next Comment (8:34 AM)."

1. The claim happens to be true. There are numerous inconsistencies that Woolf has brought up that Radar can't respond to. An example of this is the list of questions that Radar was going to ask Sarfati about and has been promising to address. He can't.

2. Had another look at Radar's post from 8:34. I don't see how it contains any inconsistencies that modern science can't address. Could you point one out?

AmericanVet said...

OROR - How many times have commenters on this site accused creationists of depending on the Bible for evidence as if that was a bad thing? Happens all the time.

Take a look at the history of science and you will see that it was Bible-believing scientists who saved science from axiomatic presumptions to hypothesis and testing. It was Christians and Theists who fought to prove to the world that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Basic physics and electromagnetic theory came from Christians. Newton wasn't afraid to use the Bible and neither was Von Braun.

The Bible is the most published book in the world, the first book ever printed, the most accessed reference book of all time and the basic archaeological handbook for studying the Middle East. It is evidence. Evidence is part of science.

As to the argument from incredulity, that is a oft-used tactic in logic but it is much like castling in chess. It is a defensive position usually taken because of weakness. But when a scientist points out that a system cannot have logically just have been cobbled together piecemeal but rather is irreducibly complex, that is not an argument from incredulity but rather a credible assertion.

Not one of you is unhappy with Woolf and his manners? I would have thought that the rest of the gang would agree that insulting a lady is not manly.

Anonymous said...

"Woolf, since you cannot use evidence to win the argument you insult ladies?"

I always thought Lista was a teenager, or perhaps even younger than that.

AmericanVet said...

If you've paid attention I said I would get to Woolfs questions eventually but pointed out that they are not terribly significant. I mean, he asked me about LIPs and didn't know what BIFs are? Really? I answered that one already.

I also pointed out that modern dolphins would not necessarily have existed at the same time as ichthyosaurs since variation within kind can happen rapidly. Whale kinds existed during the Flood and they still do today. That doesn't mean they look the same and, as mentioned before, many huge animals could not grow to immense sizes now because of a lower percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Really, Woolf behaves so badly these days it is hard to want to bother with him. I doubt that I will ever answer his questions until he apologizes for insulting a lady and it takes a real man to apologize. Shall we wait and see?

Anonymous said...

"Not one of you is unhappy with Woolf and his manners? I would have thought that the rest of the gang would agree that insulting a lady is not manly."

What was the insult? You mean the boot-licking thing? Yeah, it's not the nicest thing to say, but it's not really worse than the way you talk to some of us.

If you'd like to raise the level of manners on your blog, I'd suggest you lead by example.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

How many times have commenters on this site accused creationists of depending on the Bible for evidence as if that was a bad thing? Happens all the time.

Well yeah, but that's because creationists DO depend on the Bible for evidence. That's not someone else introducing the subject, that's acknowledging that that's what creationists DO.

Is it a bad thing? Scientifically speaking, yes, because it's special pleading, a logical fallacy. You wouldn't include every other religious text or creation myth as evidence, and Genesis itself is as unsupported as any other creation myth. Having different parts of the Bible line up with archaeological findings doesn't change that fact - that would be indulging in another logical fallacy, the fallacy of composition.

AmericanVet said...

Tell you a story - in our local political scene there is a big guy of maybe around 290 pounds and something over six feet tall. He usually has some beard growth and he is loud and opinionated. He is a local office holder.

There were some rumors going around and he was part of them because irregularities at a polling place were detected and from this came more stories that this man passed around. He found out that he was incorrect. So at a meeting of officials and concerned citizens (like my wife and I) this big guy stands up and publically apologized to the two people he'd passed along the story about in front of the whole crowd.

Before he did that, I figured he was a bit of a loudmouth but he did get things done so I would vote for him. But after he apologized I caught up to him after the meeting and shook his hand and told him I admired him for that. He just said, "I was wrong and I had to admit it." He may be a big guy physically but to me he proved to be a big man when he stooped to apologize.

A man is the guy who provides for his family, stands up for his friends, admits when he is wrong and fights for what is right.

Oh, and anonymous thinks it is okay to insult ladies because they are teenagers? Is that right? So if Lista was a teenager then men should pick on women AND children?! Where do you people come from?

AmericanVet said...

Darwinists have dragged down the level of conversation on this blog by their continual name-calling and general bad manners. Like I said, go into a Texas bar and say that about any guy's lady in the place and see if you walk out in one piece?

You Darwinists have used name-calling and derision for several years instead of trying to argue with evidence. My blog is pretty mannerly, actually, I make good posts and then in the comments thread the commenters get nasty. So far I have not resorted to moderation because you've kept it relatively family friendly even if lacking in civility. It is you Darwinists who want to brawl instead of discuss.

AmericanVet said...

Also the only thing I can say in Woolf's defense and it is little indeed is that he uses his name even when he is insulting a lady. He has an identity, I have an identity, while most of the commenters are anonymous. I think Woolf should apologize and I am wondering if he has it in him. But I will give him credit for being brave enough to be himself and not just be "anonymous."

Anonymous said...

"If you've paid attention I said I would get to Woolfs questions eventually"

He's been asking some of those questions for the better part of a year now.

"but pointed out that they are not terribly significant."

When you think them through, they falsify YEC. In the context of this blog, that would be significant.

"I mean, he asked me about LIPs and didn't know what BIFs are? Really? I answered that one already."

AFAIR he was temporarily confused because you misspelled it (BIFS instead of BIFs). He did know what a BIF was.

"I also pointed out that modern dolphins would not necessarily have existed at the same time as ichthyosaurs since variation within kind can happen rapidly."

Interesting. So you're proposing a hypothesis that dolphins did evolve from ichthyosaurs, but that they did so rapidly, namely within the one year of the flood, while the flood was going on. Is that right?

"Whale kinds existed during the Flood and they still do today. That doesn't mean they look the same and, as mentioned before, many huge animals could not grow to immense sizes now because of a lower percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere."

Okay, so you've made that claim. Here's how we can test it. We look at the part of the fossil record that, say, Tas Walker assigns to the flood period and we see if there are any "whale kinds" there.

There aren't.

So this claim doesn't work.

Wanna try another one?

"Really, Woolf behaves so badly these days it is hard to want to bother with him."

I would think Woolf is frustrated because you consistently ignore and misrepresent his pertinent questions and are certainly not shy to insult him.

"I doubt that I will ever answer his questions until he apologizes for insulting a lady and it takes a real man to apologize. Shall we wait and see?"

Sounds like you're hiding behind this to avoid answering the questions. Do you now have a policy where we have to stop the discussion until someone apologizes for some insult?

And no, I don't think it's okay to insult teenagers, that wasn't what my comment was referring to. I just thought it was unusual to refer to someone around 12 or 13 as a lady - I usually see that applied to an adult.

Anonymous said...

"Also the only thing I can say in Woolf's defense and it is little indeed is that he uses his name even when he is insulting a lady. He has an identity, I have an identity, while most of the commenters are anonymous. I think Woolf should apologize and I am wondering if he has it in him. But I will give him credit for being brave enough to be himself and not just be "anonymous.""

And "Radar" and "AmericanVet" are different from, say "Oh Really Oh Reilly" or "Anonymous whatsit" how exactly?

Anonymous said...

"You Darwinists have used name-calling and derision for several years instead of trying to argue with evidence. My blog is pretty mannerly, actually, I make good posts and then in the comments thread the commenters get nasty. So far I have not resorted to moderation because you've kept it relatively family friendly even if lacking in civility. It is you Darwinists who want to brawl instead of discuss."

There has been no shortage of discussion of scientific aspects from your counterparts. You've even ignored large chunks of it if it doesn't suit your narrative.

But as for name-calling, would you be willing to do the manly thing and actually raise the level of discourse on your own blog? By, say, excluding language like "Darwinist liars"? Once you do that, you can have a legitimate expectation that others will follow your lead. Until then, you'll have to accept that commenters will think that that kind of talk is acceptable.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

the concept of natural selection, a term coined by a Christian to describe the conservation of kind mechanism built into organisms

Could you refresh my memory? Which creationist coined the term "natural selection"?

AmericanVet said...

the concept of natural selection, a term coined by a Christian to describe the conservation of kind mechanism built into organisms

Could you refresh my memory? Which creationist coined the term "natural selection"?


Edward Blyth.

As to "Darwinist liars", quit supporting Peppered Moths and Haeckel Charts and Pakicetus and other such lies and you will not be lying. If you personally have not lied then it doesn't apply to you and you have no quarrel with the term. But those who promote these kinds of lies, and there are many of them, well, they are liars. Not my fault, I didn't do it.

AmericanVet said...

Enough for one night, time to go spend time with my wife.

Anonymous said...

"Could you refresh my memory? Which creationist coined the term "natural selection"?"

"Edward Blyth."

Blyth described a similar process and never used the term "natural selection". AFAICT that term was coined by Darwin.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Jon Woolf said...

Insult a lady? When did I do that?

Ohh, I see. You thought that was insulting a lady? Two problems, Radar: 1) it wasn't meant as an insult, but an honest question; and 2) it wasn't directed at a lady.

"As to "Darwinist liars", quit supporting Peppered Moths and Haeckel Charts and Pakicetus and other such lies and you will not be lying."

Modern evolutionary theory doesn't use Haeckel's drawings anymore, precisely because they're borderline-dishonest. Peppered moths are not a lie; the creationist claims about peppered moths are. As for Pakicetus: whle much of the original reconstruction was speculative, the attributes that link it to later Cetacea were not. It really does have synapomorphies that are found nowhere else but in cetaceans.

When you stop insulting evolution-defenders, and apologize for having done so all these years, then you'll have moral authority to demand such behavior form others. Until then ... consider this a small taste of the Threefold Rule.

AmericanVet said...

Yes, Jon Woolf, you insulted a lady. If you are implying that Lista is not a lady, you are adding more insult to injury. It takes a real man to apologize and admit his fault. Man up and apologize or you are absolutely no gentleman and certainly a bad excuse for a man.

Peppered Moths are a lie. The dark and light forms are both found in the genome and have been for as long as they have been observed. The specimens glued to tree trunks was deceptive because the moths live high up in the canopy areas of trees or hide in shrubbery and do not tend to land on tree trunks, which was the Darwnist lie in the first place.

Haeckels drawings are STILL found in textbooks. Why doesn't the NCSE make sure they are cast from science? THey are not borderline dishonest they are completely a hoax and Haeckel knew it when he made them. It was an intentional fraud. The drawings look nothing like the actual fetuses.

Pakicetus was a land animal. Like usual, Darwinists headlined it and like Nebraska Man it was completely wrong. You still defend it? It was another Gingerich blunder, period.

Arsenic bacteria was a lie as well. The claim that the bacteria had replaced the basic DNA makeup was proven to be completely false but again this was a headline with big fanfare and then the retraction was a tiny one.

I don't have to insult Darwinists, all I have to do is reveal the truth. You cannot bring yourself to even admit that Peppered Moths were a complete mistake with a phony photo to boot, you will not admit that Gingerich was wrong about Pakicetus, you even give Haeckel an out?

Evolution-defenders use bullying and censorship and all sorts of illegal tactics to try to stifle ID and Creationists. You fear the level playing field because you expect to be beaten in the world of logic and evidence. Fortunately scientists and academics who have been prejudicially fired are fighting back and it is hitting organizations in the pocketbook.

African-Americans had to fight by many means to overcome prejudice and bullying and threats but they did not give up and they got Jim Crow Laws (from the Darwinist Eugenics crowd) overturned. Now it is the Creationists and ID scientists who are being discriminated against. But despite many generations of brainwashing the American public still doesn't quite buy Darwinism and, as we publish the truth, it shall be overturned just as Jim Crow wss overturned.

AmericanVet said...

"Dark being the operative word because these fudge factors are not detected or observed but the equations NEED them to be out there somewhere to work."

Why would you mock this logic? Your own is not far from it. To rephrase the above:

"Dark being the operative word because God is not detected or observed but creationists NEED God to be out there somewhere for their hypothesis to work."


Oh, you forgot that Pasteur proved Biogenesis, thereby logically proving that it took a supernatural agent to have invented life? This was tested and continues to pass every test.

Also, Creationism would assert that speciation does happen and is a design feature but one kind becoming another kind does not happen. This is what we observe.

In fact, organisms appear to be designed and designed brilliantly. This fits the Creation scenario. This is what we observe. Creationism is all we do observe in fact.

As to the fossil record, there are precious few transitionals presented and none of them are sure things. Otherwise the fossil record is absolutely NOT what Darwin would have predicted for he himself said a lack of transitional fossils would be a huge problem for his hypothesis. If organisms slowly morph into new organisms over long periods of time and the fossil record is laid over long periods representing those changes then the fossil record is a disaster for Darwinism.

As to Blyth, he did invent natural selection whether you like it or not. Wallace and Hutton also came up with large portions of the information Darwin published under his own name. Darwin was a bit of a plagiarist, actually. In the case of Blyth, Darwin took his work but twisted it because Blyth rightly saw natural selection as being part of the design of organisms that preserves kind. This is what we observe.

AmericanVet said...

By the way, I check on comments off and on, I do not sit at the computer all day waiting for them, so if one of you makes a comment it could well be a day before I happen to look, depending on real life events. So quit declaring victory five minutes after you post something. I have a family, a business, friends, other interests which all mean I have a life outside of blogging. You should have one, too.

Anonymous said...

"If you are implying that Lista is not a lady, you are adding more insult to injury."

Kindly present evidence that Lista is a lady. We know nothing about her other than her comments on this blog, and from that we can't even be sure that Lista's female, let alone that she's a lady.

Are you going on the assumption that female = lady?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Oh, you forgot that Pasteur proved Biogenesis, thereby logically proving that it took a supernatural agent to have invented life? This was tested and continues to pass every test."

There's nothing to forget. You're simply overreaching.

Pasteur proved that complex life forms observed over a short period of terms tend to come from other complex life forms. If you think he (and others like him) proved anything other than that, show us the tests. And show us the current tests that you claim are conducted to verify the impossibility of abiogenesis by natural means.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"So quit declaring victory five minutes after you post something."

That hasn't happened on the Darwinist front, though you yourself have done it on occasion.

If you're thinking of Jon Woolf's questions that you've been unable to answer for about a year by now, that's a different story.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"As to Blyth, he did invent natural selection whether you like it or not."

Personally, I don't have any emotional attachment to it one way or the other. But you're changing your tune. You said he coined natural selection, and he didn't.

"Wallace and Hutton also came up with large portions of the information Darwin published under his own name. Darwin was a bit of a plagiarist, actually."

Every scientist builds on what came before them. Darwin wasn't operating in a vacuum. You're overestimating the fetish that you perceive your opponents have with Darwin.

"In the case of Blyth, Darwin took his work but twisted it because Blyth rightly saw natural selection as being part of the design of organisms that preserves kind."

The "rightly" in this sentence is unsupported. You're presuming facts not in evidence.

"This is what we observe."

Not in the fossil record, for example, which is why creationists (and "biblical geologists") can't account for the fossil record even while they crow about going by observed evidence.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Otherwise the fossil record is absolutely NOT what Darwin would have predicted for he himself said a lack of transitional fossils would be a huge problem for his hypothesis."

Here are some examples of major transitional fossils found since Darwin:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/#/ergaster-missing-link_5322_600x450.jpg

http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Also, Creationism would assert that speciation does happen and is a design feature but one kind becoming another kind does not happen. This is what we observe."

Has creationism advanced to the point that you can provide a scientific definition of "kind" and its relation to "species"? Until that time, this statement is meaningless.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"In fact, organisms appear to be designed and designed brilliantly. This fits the Creation scenario. This is what we observe. Creationism is all we do observe in fact."

This is easily reworded as follows:

In fact, organisms appear to have evolved and evolved brilliantly. This fits the evolution scenario. This is what we observe. Evolution is all we do observe in fact.

Something working brilliantly doesn't automatically mean it was designed, since evolution provides a plausible alternative. Your continued blindness and denial of this doesn't make it go away, and doesn't buy you the right to lambast others who do understand it.

Lista said...

American Vet, 5:58 PM,
It's Ok, Radar. I Know that those who Insult me are Behaving Like Idiots.

Oh Really, O'Reilly, 6:09 PM,
"More Often, then not, it is the Evolutionists that Bring up the Bible in the Midst of a Scientific Discussion, not the Creationists."

I was Referring to Discussions, like on this Comment Thread, not to Scientific Papers, such as when Woolf said the Following...

"The assumption that the Bible is literally true, every word, and if the evidence disagrees with the Bible then the evidence must be twisted, distorted, manipulated, and (when all else fails) simply ignored, in order to keep that assumption intact."

That is Quite an Accusation. As I see it, the Bible is a Valid Source for a Hypothesis, but to Claim or even Imply that we have no Evidence besides that is Simply not True.

Also, Intelligent Design Scientists do not use the Bible at all. Their Focus is Only on Evidence of Intelligent Design and they Deliberately Avoid Describing such a Creator, or Supporting any Form of Theism over another. I Lean more Towards their Approach on the Matter, yet I do not see what is so Wrong with Using the Bible as a Basis for a Hypothesis to be Tested.

"Perhaps you're talking about blog discussions as such, but even there, creationists talk about the Bible and religion almost non-stop."

That is not what I have Observed, O'Reilly. You are just Full of Untruths Today.

The Main Example that I Would Like to Name is on Another Comment Thread. Perhaps I'll Look it Up in a Minute After Responding to the Rest of the Comments on this Thread.

Anonymous, 6:30 PM,
"The claim happens to be true. There are numerous inconsistencies that Woolf has brought up that Radar can't respond to."

I did not say that the Claim was Untrue. I Said that it was a Hypocrisy because Evolutionists are Guilty of the Same Thing. Evolutionists are Continually Expecting a Higher Standard from Creationists then they can Produce themselves.

In Radar's/American Vet - 8:34 AM Comment, Radar Points Out a Whole List of things that Evolutionists do not Adequately Explain.

Anonymous, 6:32 PM,
"I always thought Lista was a teenager, or perhaps even younger than that."

Boy are you ever Off! I'm a College Graduate for One, but that was a rather Long Time Ago. I've been Assuming, though, that I've Probably Been Talking to a Bunch of College Kids, all of which are Younger than me. Radar is the One Exception and Possibly Woolf, but I'm not sure.

Lista said...

The Idea that I am Only 12 is Still Sinking in. I Bet you that was Spoken for the Purpose of being an Insult. It's too bad that you guys do not have Better Self Esteem so that Insulting and Putting Others Down would not be so Necessary.

On the Other Hand, perhaps I should have Taken it as a Complement, because any 12 Year Old that could Even Begin to Keep Up with this Conversation would have to be an Extremely Bright 12 Year Old.

Woolf, 4:56 AM,
"1) it wasn't meant as an insult, but an honest question; and 2) it wasn't directed at a lady."

Well, because of my Very High Standard in Relation to Sexual Morality, it was a rather Insulting Question. It just so Happens that both Radar and me are Married, so what you were Suggesting would be a Form of Adultery. Even if that weren't True, that Question is Personal and would be None of your Business.

Asking Personal Questions like that is Very Highly Rude and this is a whole Separate Category of Insult then Insulting a Person's Scientific Believes, such as in Relation to Evolution.

The Lie is that Creationism is not a Science, that there is no Evidence to Support their Claims and that Evolutionism can Explain Everything and has Confirmed Everything without Exception. That is most Definitely a Lie. At the Very Least, it is a Highly Dishonest Exaggeration.

American Vet, 7:16 AM,
Thanks for Sticking Up for me, yet I don't Think that Woolf is going to Apologize. The Insult was Likely Meant just as much towards you because, as a Married Man, you are not going to Allow what he was Suggesting, for that is not how Christians Generally Behave.

Anonymous is the One who Thinks I'm not a Lady because I'm 12. That wasn't Woolf and Actually, I find that to be Even more Insulting the what Woolf Said.

American Vet, 7:25 AM,
You made some Very Excellent Points.

Concluding Thoughts:
I Think that what can be Learned from Reading your Comment Threads is Limited, Radar, because in Every Single One of them, there are just too Many Subjects being Talked about at Once and this is why Reading the Links is so Difficult to do. Everyone just Insults and Makes Claims. This is Very Tiring and at Times not as Informative as it should be.

I just don't see how Presenting Way more than I can Read and then Insulting me because I don't Read it is Accomplishing much of anything. If it weren't for the Insults, I might have more Energy to Read, but then again, Perhaps they don't Really want me to Read. If I did that, I might Discover the Truth, rather than their Deception.

Whatever. Apparently, I'm just 12.

Here's a Thought. Show me Evidence that Anonymous is not Only 12 as well. If so, someone should Spank him for his Rudeness and Put him on Restriction for a Month.

Jon Woolf said...

"Man up and apologize or you are absolutely no gentleman "

[snicker.wav] I never claimed to be.

Anyway, the premise of your demand is faulty. It takes more than female sex organs to make a lady ... just as it takes more than the male variety to make a gentleman. If Lista wishes to be treated like a lady, she should act and write like one.

"Haeckels drawings are STILL found in textbooks. Why doesn't the NCSE make sure they are cast from science?"

Would that they could; I'm sure they would like to do so as much as you and I would. The use of Haeckel's woodcuts and certain other material in some biology textbooks is a running sore in the side of both good science and good education. But you need to yell at the people who actually write the textbooks, and that's not the NCSE.

On second thought, they'd probably like it a lot more than you would, seeing as how it would deprive you of one of the very few weapons you have against evolutionary theory. Why, if you didn't have these strawmen to rail about, you'd have to talk about the actual science, and we all know you can't do that.

Numerous private moth collections in England establish that your claims about Biston betularia are false.

"Pakicetus was a land animal. Like usual, Darwinists headlined it and like Nebraska Man it was completely wrong."

No, it wasn't. As usual, you're trying to sound authoritative about subjects that are way over your head. We now know that Pakicetus was in fact a land animal, and the reconstruction of it as semiaquatic was apparently wrong. However, it did have certain anatomical features that connect it to the Cetacea. That has never been in question.

Lista said...

Woolf, 10:37 AM,
"If Lista wishes to be treated like a lady, she should act and write like one."

What that is is a Form a Manipulation to get me to Stop Capitalizing my Words. I Never Respond to stuff like that. Polite Requests will sometimes have and Effect, but the Suggestion that I should do this, or else, has a Tendency to Cause Rebellion rather then Compliance.

Are you Actually Admitting that Text Books Contain Lies? Now we may be Getting somewhere.

Why doesn't the NCSE have any Power over the Text Books.

"On second thought, they'd probably like it a lot more than you would, seeing as how it would deprive you of one of the very few weapons you have against evolutionary theory. Why, if you didn't have these strawmen to rail about, you'd have to talk about the actual science, and we all know you can't do that."

Now see, that is a Very Unfair and Deceptive Exaggeration. That's sort of like a Lie as well.

"We now know that Pakicetus was in fact a land animal, and the reconstruction of it as semiaquatic was apparently wrong."

Isn't that what Radar was Trying to Say?

Lista said...

Why would I Want to be Treated Like a Lady anyway by someone who has Never Claimed to be a Gentleman? If you are not a Gentleman, then you do not Know how to Treat a Lady like a Lady anyway, so there is no Point in me Trying to Earn something from you that you do not Know how to Give.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

Why would I Want to be Treated Like a Lady anyway by someone who has Never Claimed to be a Gentleman? If you are not a Gentleman, then you do not Know how to Treat a Lady like a Lady anyway, so there is no Point in me Trying to Earn something from you that you do not Know how to Give.

This is rapidly ascending into some pretty good comedy here...!

Well for starters, Lista never claimed to be a lady, so I guess they're even.

And seriously, would any self-respecting (and self-appointed) lady or gentleman hang out in a joint like this? :-)

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

And not to put too fine a point on it, Lista, but you do come across as... younger than you claim to be.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

What that is is a Form a Manipulation to get me to Stop Capitalizing my Words. I Never Respond to stuff like that. Polite Requests will sometimes have and Effect, but the Suggestion that I should do this, or else, has a Tendency to Cause Rebellion rather then Compliance.

I have no idea why you willfully mangle the English language, since it seems that you're aware of the blatant nonsense of your mode of communication and even know how to get it right. But no, it doesn't make you look particularly mature and contributes to people perceiving you as a child.

Could you explain why you choose to communicate like this when you're clearly capable of better?

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

"Why doesn't the NCSE have any Power over the Text Books."

Is it really that hard to look up what the NCSE actually is? Don't buy into every conspiracy theory you find on creationist websites. You'll be better off in the long run.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

We now know that Pakicetus was in fact a land animal, and the reconstruction of it as semiaquatic was apparently wrong.

Isn't that what Radar was Trying to Say?

No, Radar was implying (AFAICT) that Pakicetus being a land animal shows that it's not related to whales.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

Now see, that is a Very Unfair and Deceptive Exaggeration. That's sort of like a Lie as well.

Not like a lie at all. Nor much of an exaggeration. Witness, for example, the most recent example of creationist "science" that Radar posted on his blog - just go back a single post and you'll find an embarrassing "model" that doesn't address most of the evidence. It's a clear example of how out of their depth creationists are when they try to do science.

Jon Woolf said...

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. It's the exact, literal truth.

For example, Radar is fond of claiming that the fossil record supports the Flood: that fossils of animals and plants and other things are preserved the way a flood would preserve them. Well, there's an entire field of science that's concerned with how organisms go from being alive, to being dead, to becoming fossils. It's called taphonomy, and those who study it are called taphonomists. Taphonomists are quite good at discerning how organisms died and what sort of habitat they probably lived in. And what taphonomy tells us is that most fossilized organisms were not killed in floods. Most of them lived in perfectly ordinary habitats and died in perfectly ordinary ways. These mammoths and sabertooth cats and dire wolves died in a tar pit. That primitive horse died in labor, a result of a failed breech birth. This dinosaur was killed while brooding its eggs by a huge desert sandstorm, and that sand became the sandstone in which the dinosaur and its nest were buried. This whale died of natural causes and sank into the deeps, where its body was skeletized by scavengers and then gradually buried by the accumulation of deep-sea oozes. And so on and so forth. All very well documented, all very easy to understand.

So taphonomy is good science. But Radar can't allow a discussion of it, because it doesn't support YEC.

Lista said...

OR, O'Reilly,
To me, someone who is not a Lady is someone who is Loose with their Sexuality and that most Definitely is not me. I was a Virgin when I got Married and that was at Age 27 and I've Never had Sex with any other man.

"And seriously, would any self-respecting (and self-appointed) lady or gentleman hang out in a joint like this? :-)"

Chuckle. Now there is an Interesting Question. lol.

I Capitalize because it's Habit. I Know for a Fact that I've Said that before. Blogging is not a Job that I get Paid for. This is not a Resume and is not Supposed to be Hard Work. Personally, I think the habit of Insulting that goes on on this blog is Far Worse then the Capitalizing of a few Letters.

Thanks, though, for being more Polite about your Inquiry about my Capital Letters, then the Others. That is very much Appreciated.

Woolf,
Well, now isn't that Great? First you Tell me that I am not a Lady and then you Expect me to Respect you as you Try and Teach me about Taphonomy. Some Might say that the Issue Isn't about Character, but about the Facts, yet if the Issue is who is and who isn't Lying, then Character has Everything to do with it and I have Found much more Character in Radar then in the Rest of you.

The funny thing is that you had my respect over the Others, yet in this Comment Thread, you went and Blew it.

Jon Woolf said...

What makes you think that comment was directed to you, Lista?

So let me see if I have this straight: you make a habit of belittling my knowledge, insulting my integrity, and calling me a liar and a hypocrite. You mock and deride my attempts to inform you, and then you don't even bother to read any of the sources I suggest for further information before telling me you're certain I'm wrong. Then you tell me that I "had your respect" and you expect me to believe it.

Yeah. Right.

I don't know which is more annoying: the way you so casually dismiss my years of study, or the fact you obviously think I'm stupid enough to believe you now.

Anonymous said...

I'll buy Lista's claims that she's not loose sexually, but am increasingly dubious about her age and maturity.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The Lie is that Creationism is not a Science,"

To the extent that it has produced falsifiable claims, they have all been falsified.

"that there is no Evidence to Support their Claims"

The evidence being what exactly? Look through Radar's posts and you will find that he is limited to logical fallacies, taking potshots at evolution and banging the bible. Evidence FOR creation? Where is it?

"and that Evolutionism can Explain Everything and has Confirmed Everything without Exception."

You've fallen for some creationist propaganda here. The theory of evolution isn't dependent on, say, the Big Bang, or even abiogenesis by natural means. "Evolutionism" only has to explain evolution, and it does that rather well.

When creationists go "ah, but does it explain where time came from" (seriously, I've seen YECs do this), they are simply and transparently changing the subject.

Lista said...

Woolf,
Since I have Checked the Box to have Comments sent to my Email Box, no One Gets Away with Making a Comment and then Deleting it.

"What makes you think that comment was directed to you, Lista?"

Gee....., could it be Because you Addressed me by Name? (Jon Woolf, 5:14 PM) I guess you shouldn't have done that. Forgot you might have to Deny it Later, huh?

Imply and then Deny. Classic Manipulation. Unfortunately, this Time, you Forgot to Imply and actually Addressed me by Name.

Ooh. You just gave me Clear Evidence of Deception and Lying.

"So let me see if I have this straight: you make a habit of belittling my knowledge, insulting my integrity, and calling me a liar and a hypocrite. You mock and deride my attempts to inform you."

Boy! Is that ever a Hypocrisy?!!

"and then you don't even bother to read any of the sources I suggest for further information before telling me you're certain I'm wrong."

Oh and BTW, I did Read Something and all it does is Incriminate you.

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/marty5.htm

I Got a Kick Out of your Prediction of how I was going to Respond.

"and you'll flutter your hands in the air and Weep Copiously about how those drunken evolutionists were so nasty and mean and rude to that virtuous upright Christian minister and his loyal flock." (Jon Woolf, 5:14 PM).

The Thing is that even if you were Right, which you are not, to Mock Someone who is "Weeping Copiously" Puts you at the Very Bottom of the Barrel in Terms of Character, so here is what I want everyone Reading this to Think about...

When it Comes to Trust and to Determining who is Telling the Truth and Who is Lying, would you Trust the Mockers in the Story in the above Link, as well as someone, like Woolf, who is Willing to Mock someone who is Weeping, or would you Trust someone Like Radar, who Occasionally gets Flustered and allows just a Few Insults to Slip?

Don't you see, Woolf? You are Incriminating yourself and No One Else when you Act the Way you do.

"Then you tell me that I 'had your respect' and you expect me to believe it."

I don't Care what you Believe, Woolf, and the Reason Why is because you are not the Only One Listening to and Reading this Comment Thread and anyway, Respect and Trust Comes in Degrees and Gradually Grows Over Time, yet it will Never do so, if you Stomp on it Each Time it Begins to Sprout a Little.

I do not Dismiss your Years of Study, Woolf. I just Know that there are Others who have Studied Equally that Disagree with you.

Anonymous,
"I'll buy Lista's claims that she's not loose sexually, but am increasingly dubious about her age and maturity."

Thanks for the First Part. I'm Puzzled Over the Second Part, but whatever.

Anonymous Whatsit,
"To the extent that it has produced falsifiable claims, they have all been falsified."

The Word All in Relation to Creationism is an Exaggeration, yet the so Called Links in the Fossil Record have been Falsified, even though the Evolutionists will Deny it.

You are in Denial about the Evidence for Creationism. There IS Evidence in Radar's Posts. You’re just too Blinded by Bias to see it.

"'Evolutionism' only has to explain evolution, and it does that rather well."

No, it does not. Irreversible Complexity has not been Adequately Explained.

Lista said...

Radar, you had Better Check your Spam File. I just Posted Something that didn't Post and there is a Possibility that Woolf did too, for it came into my Email Box.

Jon Woolf said...

"Gee....., could it be Because you Addressed me by Name?"

You were looking at the wrong comment. When I said "that comment", I was referring to the one about taphonomy, which in turn was a response to "Oh Really O'Reilly" saying that he (she?) thought my statement that Radar can't discuss the science was a bit of an exaggeration.

In rereading it now, I think I worded it badly. If O'Reilly already knew something of taphonomy, my comment could easily sound very condescending, which is not what I intended at all. So O'Reilly, if you already knew that material and found my tone offensive, then I do apologize.

radar said...

Woolf apologizes to some random guy but not to a lady? I do not get it?

Anyway, I released a few comments caught by the spam filter, all of the comments caught in the last ten days or so except for one duplicate.

Embriette, I added your blog to my links but I cannot succeed in posting a comment on your blog. But sure do appreciated what you bring to the discussion!

Lista said...

Woolf,
You have Totally Lost me. I Still don't know what Comment you are Referring to. I could not Find the Word Exaggeration in any of OR, O'Reilly's Comments, except when he/she was Quoting me.

As Odd as it Seems, I do Feel Sort of Like Apologizing for the Fact that I Judged you in that I thought you had Submitted a Comment and then Deleted it, when in Reality it was just Caught in Moderation and my Perception in this Matter Effected my Judgements of that Comment and you were also Reminding me of a Manipulator that I used to Know who would Direct an Insult at me and then Deny he had done so.

Radar,
"Woolf apologizes to some random guy but not to a lady? I do not get it?"

Woolf does not Know whether OR, O'Reilly is a man or a Woman, yet it Probably doesn't Matter. One Possibility is that as long as a Woman is in Agreement with his Point of View, it's Ok. It is Only Women who Disagree with him that he Finds Offensive. He May Think that Women are Supposed to be Compliant (a Male Chauvinist). Another Possibility is that Perhaps he just doesn't Like anyone who Disagrees with him. Has he ever Apologized to you for anything or does he Only Apologize to his Own?

You Can't Post to my Blog? I Wonder Why. Someone else had that Problem awhile Back. I hope the Problem isn't on my Blog. I don't even Know what to Check in Order to Fix it.

Jon Woolf said...

[scratches head in puzzlement]

Such a simple question, yet two (allegedly) smart people struggle so much with it. Accusations of sexism ... chauvenism ... other varieties of small-mindedness ... Is it really possible that the simplest answer of all has eluded you both: that I treat people with respect unless and until they give me a reason not to?

Yup. I guess it has.

Ah well. Better luck with your amateur headology next time. I do suggest a course of study with Granny Weatherwax, though. You both could clearly benefit from her rather ... unique ... training.

Lista said...

Well, I'm Scratching my Head in Puzzlement too, because I have no Idea at all What it is that I did that has Caused you to Loose Respect for me. I've Disagreed with you. Is that my Horrible Crime or is it because I have a life outside of the Blogosphere and therefore am not Able to Read Everything that you would Like me to?

I have Started Reading this, though, and am not Really all that Impressed with it.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Here's the Problem. The Only Way I am going to Know if Something is Being Misrepresented is if I Go Back and Watch the Documentary again and that is not on my Schedule of Things to do.

There are Only Two Ways to Wade through Material in which someone has been Accused of Lying. One is to Read Massive Amounts of Material on both Sides until One is an Expert on Everything that is Relevant. Not Everyone has the Time to do that. The Other is to Evaluate the Character of the Ones who are Making the Accusations and Unfortunately you have not Passed my Character Tests.

As to What I have done to Deserve the Status of a Non-Lady. I Can't Read your Mind, Woolf, and I'm Puzzled as to why you would Think that I could.

It is not Reasonable to have Expectations that are so High that there are Very Few that Measure Up, before Giving Out Even the Smallest Level of Respect.

Personally, I Think that Radar should Put Comment Moderation on, since you are all so Extravagantly Insulting.

I don't Need this. I have Better Things to do.

radar said...

I am a published author and my identity is known to those who care to seek it out. In fact there is only one person in the USA with my name and that makes it fairly likely that there is only one me on the planet.

This comment thread didn't address the blogpost but it did give commenters a great chance to show their colors I suppose. Make fun of ladies and laugh at God. Get it all out of your system now because you are going to meet God one way or the other. I look forward to being in God's presence and being able to appreciated His glory and majesty better because I will be better able to grasp these qualities when I am changed from temporal to eternal body and my flesh and limited understanding are cast aside.

Most of the information I post on the blog is scientific evidence rather than Bible. I post much more science than scripture. So the idea that I just thump the Bible at people is silly.

In one area, though, the Bible must be authoritative. Only God knows when you will die and only God will decide your eternal fate. He went to all the trouble to make the Universe and mankind, then, when man could not handle free will God set up a system of sacrifices and offered to connect with us by faith despite our sin. The sacrifices and ceremonies and prophecies all pointed to the coming of the Messiah who would solve the sin problem once and for all. Jesus took the sin of the world upon Himself and died cruelly and shamefully upon a cross and then rose from the dead three days later to proclaim victory over sin and death.

Today anyone can meet God by faith if you can understand that you are a sinner and that your Maker has the right to determine whether you should be punished for your sins. Jesus Christ paid that price if you will simply understand what He did, and repent. You repent of depending upon yourself and you put your fate in the hands of God and God changes you from the inside out.

So meet God while you are alive and find out how great He really is...or meet Him after you have died and find out how righteous He really is. A Just God must punish sin. You want Jesus to pay that price for you or will you take it upon yourself?

See, the above is what bringing the Bible into the discussion is all about. Read Romans chapters 4-10 and John from the beginning to say the end of chapter 10. Consider what Jesus said in John 3:16-18 and what Paul wrote in Romans 10:9-13. What did Romans 5:1 say? Romans 6:23? How about Romans 8:1? Does the Son of God come to Earth and perform miracles, teach the Gospel, accept punishment and shame and death for no reason? Why would God's Son separate Himself from a supernatural existence and live in a human body for 33-some years unless it was critically important? We know when Jesus lived and died and we have eyewitness accounts of His miracles and his resurrection.

Nothing is what naturalistic materialists give credit to for the existence of the entire Universe and everything in it. The concept of nothing in place of God doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Not for nothing did God's Son die for you.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "There are Only Two Ways to Wade through Material in which someone has been Accused of Lying."

When the topic is science, there's only one way, and this is it:

"...to Read Massive Amounts of Material on both Sides until One is an Expert on Everything that is Relevant."

There simply is no other way to properly evaluate a scientific argument. You have to know the facts. Period. If the argument fits the facts it's valid. If it doesn't, it isn't. That's really all there is to it.

"Is that my Horrible Crime or is it because I have a life outside of the Blogosphere and therefore am not Able to Read Everything that you would Like me to?"

Neither. Actually, it's several things:

1) you claimed to be interested in the facts, yet when given the opportunity to learn the facts, you turned away. Then you continued to claim to be interested in the facts. The simple word for such behavior is lying.

2) you claimed to be interested in finding the truth, yet you nit-picked everything said by the science-defenders while uncritically accepting everything Radar and his sources said.

3) you accused the science-defenders of hypocrisy and other offenses based on your misunderstandings of what we said, yet cheered for Radar when he actually was hypocritical and insulting.

All of which adds up to the conclusion that you are not and never have been interested in the truth. Your chosen function here was to act as a cheerleader for Radar. While I'm sure he's gratified to have his very own groupie, I for one don't take kindly to being deceived. I honestly tried to give you the information you claimed to be looking for, and now I find that all that time and effort was wasted.

radar said...

Jon Woolf, you have really hit bottom. Your pontifications about whether Lista wants to learn or not are hypocritical in the extreme, seeing as you cannot admit to be wrong no matter what and I absolutely sliced and diced you to pieces concerning information and you glibly went away.

You never gave us a source for information. You refused to admit there was no natural source. You deny the truth about the Mary T-Rex, about Pakicetus and Ida and Peppered Moths and Haeckel and the rock layers and the formation of the Grand Canyon and a long long list of things that I have shown to be evidence that falsifies Darwinism and you just ignore it and pontificate away.

Like I said earlier, if Jon disagrees with you it is a good sign. Because Jon Woolf you sound like you call the NCSE and ask them for an official response, as if Eugenie was your cousin or something like that. Or maybe talkorigins? You never have anything new to say, it is all the same old Darwinist propaganda time and time again.

Lista said...

Oh Dear. I should have Submitted what I Wrote to Woolf Last Night cause I was Feeling Rather Peaceful about it. I was going to sort of Let the Feathers fall a Little before Starting up the Challenge again. Oh well. Here is what I wrote.

Part One:
Woolf
,
"There simply is no other way to properly evaluate a scientific argument. You have to know the facts. Period."

I'm not Talking about a Scientific Argument, Woolf. I'm Talking about the Argument of Actual Events in People's Lives. What Actually Happened? Is the Movie Expelled Correct, or are the People who are Denying what that Movie/Documentary has Claimed Correct?

This is an Issue of Reporting, not of Science. Now, I Know that you would Love it if Everyone would Study Thoroughly all that you are Interested in, but Insisting on it and Demanding it is not Going to Make it Happen. People Make Decisions Based on what they can Learn in Accordance with their Time Frame and Interest and you have no Right to Demand that they become Experts before they have the Right to Talk to you.

I have been Raised around Christians, Woolf, and they are Generally Good, Loving and Honest People. Hypocrisy is not so much the Norm, as some would have you believe and the Levels of Disrespect and Unkindness that I've Experienced Outside of the Church, by Far Exceeds any Less than Perfect Experience that I have ever had at the Hands of Christian People.

Bias is Going to Cause someone to Emphasis Things Differently then someone who has the Opposite Bias, but Bias and Dishonesty are not the Same Thing and it is my Opinion that the Movie Expelled would not have been Made if there was Absolutely Nothing Wrong in the Area of Prejudice against Creationism.

I will give you the Benefit of a Doubt that Things may have been Presented in a Biased Manner, yet I do not Buy Dishonesty. If Dishonesty is what Occurred, then why have those who Made the Movie not been Sued for Defamation of Character.

"You claimed to be interested in the facts."

Interest is a Relative Term, Woolf. Someone who is Highly Interested will Spend all Day Studying that which they are Interested in. Someone who is Some What Interested with Spend Some Time Studying, but not all Day. I have Made no Secret of the Fact that I am a Slow Reader, yet that Little Detail has Fallen on Deaf Ears.

Lista said...

Part Two:
Woolf
,
My Accusation of Hypocrisy is Based on the Claim that Evolution can Explain Everything, for you have no Right to Ask Creationists to do something that you can not do yourself and I do not Believe that Evolution has Explained Everything.

I also Believe that the Occasional Claim that Creationism Explains Absolutely Nothing is a Very Gross Exaggeration and it Offends me.

I do not Know if you Personally have Ever Made the Second of these Claims, yet there are some on this Blog who have. If the Accusations against Creationism were not so Extreme, they might be more Believable.

This has been a Very Difficult Learning Environment. Far too Much has been Thrown at me at Once and the Commenters are Rude, Insulting and Exaggerate Regularly. If it Makes you Feel any Better, Radar has Thrown too much at me as well, in that his Posts are too Long, though, he appears to be Improving in this a Little.

Radar wouldn't Need a Cheer Leader/Groupie if he wasn't so Brutally Insulted by you Guys so much of the Time. If the Conversation here was more Civil, I would be Responding to it much Differently.

If it Helps, I'll Tone the Cheer Leading Down, yet I really do Hope that the Rest of you will Tone Down the Accusations and Insults so that Learning can Actually be Possible.

You, Woolf, have been more Informative then the Others and I do Appreciate it. Sorry that I Offended you. I did not Mean to.

Anonymous said...

OK so it appears that I can't post anything anymore without it being removed. Another one for you to retrieve, Radar?

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Okay, guys, I am trying to work on a project today because tomorrow I go to the doctor to get my knee figured out. Surgery is likely. I just saw Canuckle said he got caught in the spam filter. I will check that at lunch. So hang in there.

BTW just because Jon says the same stuff as talkorigins and NCSE doesn't mean that I think he is evil. His lack of civility to women is not good. But he probably believes what he writes. I have found that brainwashed people just filter out what they do not want to hear. That is why they ignore Biogenesis because they just HAVE to find a way for life to just happen because the CAN'T stand the idea of a God. It isn't science, it is worldview.

radar said...

Sorry have to go to doctors and cannot post or even check spams yet, the knee has reached critical mass...

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, you're gibbering.

"You never gave us a source for information."

Mutations.

"You deny the truth about the Mary T-Rex,"

She found an exceptionally well-preserved T-rex fossil. She did not find intact cells or tissues.

"about Pakicetus"

The parts of Pakicetus that have been found confirm its relationship to cetaceans. The fact that you don't understand that doesn't make it false.

"and Ida"

I don't think I've ever said a word about 'Ida' here.

"and Peppered Moths"

About which, you're wrong and I've given evidence to prove it.

"and Haeckel"

Huh? IN THIS VERY COMMENT THREAD I said that Haeckel's drawings are borderline-dishonest, and aren't (and shouldn't be) used anymore.

"and the rock layers and the formation of the Grand Canyon and a long long list of things that I have"

... been wrong about.

The creationist explanation of the Grand Canyon is wrong, pure and simple. There are any number of ways to show that. Here's just one: If the Grand Canyon was cut by water running off from Flood-remnant lakes, then why doesn't it actually run, you know, downhill?

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "Is the Movie Expelled Correct, or are the People who are Denying what that Movie/Documentary has Claimed Correct?"

Sorry, if you really want an answer to that, then there's only the one way to get it: learn the evidence for yourself. Radar can post a hundred quotes supporting his side, I could find a thousand supporting mine -- but without some kind of supporting evidence, they're all just words.

"You, Woolf, have been more Informative then the Others and I do Appreciate it. Sorry that I Offended you. I did not Mean to."

That's quite kind of you. It appears I misjudged you. Apology accepted, and please consider one offered in return.

Lista said...

I'm Here. I'm just Tired. Thanks for the Apology, Woolf. I'll be Back Tomorrow Morning with a Response to some more of these Comments.

Lista said...

My Slow Reading Speed is Often Mistaken for Laziness Canacklehead. Fast Readers have Absolutely no Comprehension of what it is that I'm Saying when I Bring that Up, yet it is a Very Real Part of my Experience. Calling me Lazy is not Much Different then saying the Same about someone who Loses the Marathon Race even though Running one's Heart Out in Order to Finish.

I have never Once Claimed to not have a Bias. It is the Evolutionists that make that Claim. I have Never Made that Claim. Everyone has Bias, Canacklehead. It’s just that Only Some are willing to Admit it.

And Once Again, just because I do not Read Everything, does not Mean that I do not Read Some of it. Did I mention that I was a Slow Reader. What's the Use. No One Listens when ever I say that.

"I'd point to her many references to her 'word processor' among other things, as being proof that if she’s a lady at all, she's definitely an old one."

There you go. And I Keep Slipping and Calling STDs Venereal Disease, File Manager Used to be a Tree (XTree), whether then a Collection of "Files". I had to Throw a lot of my Dos Programs Out Some Time Back, as well as my Type Writer. lol. It’s a Good Thing that my Record Player Still Works, cause I really Do Like some of my Old Records. Also, I don't Know all of these Text Messaging Letters, though Some of them are Abbreviations for Organizations and the like, rather then Text Messages. Sometimes I don’t Know the Difference. Spoken just Like a 12 Year Old, huh? Lol.

I Use the Word Processor a Lot because I've Lost Comments before when Working Exclusively from the Internet. Another Detail is that Older People sometimes have Less Energy and have Trouble Keeping up with Young Kids. Call that Laziness if you Want to, but there are Actual Physiological Components Involved.

The Hare has always Judged the Turtle, yet because of his Over Confident Cockiness, the Turtle in the End, Wins the Race, or is the Hare and Turtle Story before your Time?

Radar,
"His lack of civility to women is not good." (Said in Relation to Woolf, yet the others are Guilty as well.)

That's Ok. Women in Politics are not Treated Very Well Either. Who Ever Heard of a Man getting Criticized for having Headaches the Way Micheal Bachmann has been? That's almost as Bad as when Sarah Palin was Criticized for Buying a New Outfit. Whatever.

As to Woolf, though, he has Apologized. He was just Mad at me for Something and was Blowing off Steam. It’s Cool. I can Take it.

"I have found that brainwashed people just filter out what they do not want to hear."

Woolf Doesn't Want me to be your Cheer Leader, Radar, but I'm Afraid I'm Guilty of the Horrible Crime of Agreeing with you.

Lista said...

Woolf,
Radar is Busy and has Explained why and yet you will not Give him even the Slightest bit of a Break.

God is the Source of Information. Mutations are a Lose of Information.

"Radar can post a hundred quotes supporting his side, I could find a thousand supporting mine -- but without some kind of supporting evidence, they're all just words."

Exactly and that is Why Massive Amounts of Reading can sometimes be Fruitless.

My Conclusions on the Matter are Mostly Based on the Fact that the Christians that I’ve Known Over the Years are Very Good and Respectable People who are Honest and Trustworthy. Hypocrisy in the Church Happens, but it is not the Norm. This has been my Experience and Observation.

The Other Thing that Influences my Conclusion about Prejudice against Creationism is the Prejudice that I have Observed against Christianity in General. I Mean Seriously! You Can’t say Marry Christmas?! Even Privately Sponsored Nativity Sets on Public Land have been Under Attack and this One in the Clincher. We can’t Even Pray at a Military Funeral?! What?!! Now they are Getting Personal and that Suggestion is Highly Offensive. This is Clear Evidence of Prejudice against Christians, so why should Prejudice against Creationism be so Hard to Believe?

These are my Observations, Woolf, so it is not as if my Suspicion that the Movie "Exposed" is Entirely Correct does not come from a Total Vacuum.

"That's quite kind of you. It appears I misjudged you. Apology accepted, and please consider one offered in return."

Wow!! Apology Accepted. Aside from that, the Main Reason why I Still Respect you just a little more than the Others is because you have Admitted a Few Things, such as the Fact that there is such a thing as Irreducible Complexity and that Haeckel's Drawing should not be Used Anymore. Don't Take that as more than what it is, though, for Respect comes in Degrees and there is Still Quite a Lot of Disagreement between us.

Anonymous said...

Regarding your "clincher" above, it appears that this is an isolated case in Houston Texas. Involving an overzealous (or should that be underzealous) VA director. And it appears to be far from settled at this point.

http://www.military.com/news/article/va-cemetery-accused-of-censoring-religious-speech.html

Beware of what you watch on Fox News, Lista. Oh and while you're at it, calm down.

Also not sure what you mean by "You Can’t say Marry Christmas?!", or who this "they" is you keep referring to is. You certainly seem to have the persecuted christian thing down though.

Separation between church and state does not equate to "Prejudice against Christians".

-Canucklehead.

Jon Woolf said...

"Exactly and that is Why Massive Amounts of Reading can sometimes be Fruitless."

If it's the wrong kind of reading ... certainly.

So look for the right kind: books that show what they're talking about, rather than merely describing it. Pictures, drawings, X-rays, diagrams, that sort of thing. Or books by men and women who have done fieldwork and can communicate that experience through their choice of language. With a bit of practice, you can always tell somebody who's been there and done that by their behavior and manner of speaking about it.

Canucklehead, there have been cases, or at least alleged cases, of school administrators refusing to allow students to refer to God in their commencement speeches, or refusing to allow Christmas carols to be sung at 'winter concerts.' Rather ridiculous, if you ask me.

Lista said...

Anonymous/Canucklehead,
Apparently you have heard the Houston Texas story. Why should I care that this is an isolated case? Things like this happen all the time. This "Isolated Case" is just an example.

The Freedom of Speech of Christians has been Under Attack Numerous Times in the Name of Hate Speech, Threatening to Take Away the Right to Speak what the Bible says about Homosexuality from the Pulpet of a Privately Owned Church.

Once when I was at Walmart, I said "Marry Christmas" to One of the Employees and she Corrected me by saying "Happy Holidays". I was Offended and Repeated "Marry Christmas". The Avoidance of the Words "Marry Christmas" was a Walmart Policy for Awhile and we were Considering Boycotting them because of it.

The Nativity Scene Story that I am the Most Aware of was in Southern California, were we used to Live. For Years, there was a whole set of Booths, Illustrating the Christmas Story, Set Up at Christmas Time, on the Grassy Area of the Center Divider of a Public Highway. Years of Tradition was Under Attack for Awhile until the Case was Settled in the Favor of the Tradition, as Long as the booths are Privately Sponsored, just as they always have been.

"Separation between church and state does not equate to 'Prejudice against Christians'."

It shouldn't, but this Idea is used Inappropriately all the Time, causing all sorts of Court Cases that should not be Necessary.

The "They" is the Liberals, Often in the Name of the ACLU and Sometimes it is just Atheist Citizens Politically Picking on the Christians. Most of the Information on Stuff like this Comes from Christian Lobbyist and Lawyer Groups, such as Concerned Women of America, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Alliance Defense Fund, Heritage Foundation, Faith and Freedom Coallition, ACLJ, Etc., Etc.

Fox News is NOT my Main Source. The Groups, just mentioned, Collect Funds from Christians all the Time, in Order to do their Lobbying and Fight their Court Cases. Quite a lot of what they are Fighting is both Expensive and should not be Necessary. You will Never Hear about any of this on any other News Station other than Fox News because Fox News is the Only One that does not have a Liberal Bias. The Fact that so many Liberals do not Know what I am talking about is Proof of that.

Woolf has Given an Excellent Example of the Sort of Thing that I'm Referring to. I Assure you, though, that these Cases are Real, not "Alleged". We Get Mail all the Time from the Organizations that I Mentioned Containing all sorts of Examples of this sort of thing.

And in relation to you, Canucklehead, Generally when you are not the Target of Discrimination, it is Easy to be Oblivious to it. I am Totally Amazed at how many Liberals do not seem to be Aware of how much of this is Going on. Leave it to the Liberal Media to Leave Stories like this Out.

I’ll Calm Down Later when the Political Climate Stops being so Very Hostile towards Christians.

Jon Woolf,
It is easier to read articles rather then books, Thank You. If I decide to Read Something more Extensive, your Blog is Probably where I would Start, yet don't get your Hopes Up too High, for my Computer Time is often Limited.

Anonymous said...

And another comment disappears immediately after posting. Yay.

Please retrieve once you're feeling better, Radar.

-Canucklehead.

Lista said...

I'm not sure Why your Comments are not Posting, Canucklehead. They have been Coming into my Word Processor. I guess I could just Keep Responding to you and Everyone will be Hearing One Side of the Conversation. lol.

I'm Going to Think about that a Minute and Meanwhile, I'm going to say One more Thing to Woolf.

I'm a little Embarrassed to Admit, John Woolf, that I Finally Looked up Bootlicking and Realized that it does not Quite Mean what I thought it did. Because of the Similarity between the Word Boot and Bootie and also the Reaction of Radar to the Suggestion, I thought that it was Sexual in Nature. I've heard of Butt Kissing, but never Licking or Tasting. That's Disgusting.

Sure I've heard of People Trying to Suck Up to or to Kiss the Butt of their Manager or Boss, yet Boot Licking is a New One for me. At First, I Wondered if that is a Saying that is more Common in the East, just as the Beach (Western Terminology) is Referred to as the Shore (Eastern Terminology) and a Small Body of Flowing Water that may Qualify as a Stream in the West is Only a Creek in the East.

I Live in the West, and believe it or not, the Language and Expressions used are Slightly different in some Cases, so I Wondered if Boot Licking was an Eastern Saying. In the West, we just Kiss Butts in Order to Gain Favor with someone, such as a Boss. Boot Licking Appears to be a Similar Expression. Not Sexual, just Agreeable Behavior, in Order to Gain Favor. Based on Radar's Reaction, he may have Misunderstood this as well.

On Second Thought, though, if you're from the UK, as Canucklehead has Suspected, then the Place where the Boot Licking Expression Came from may be Quite Different then I Thought.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: No, I'm not from the UK ... at least, not in this life. Fourth-generation American.

No, what you first thought I meant is not what I meant. There are very few people whom I would aim that level of unpleasantness at, and no one here comes anywhere near qualifying for that group.

Lista said...

Hi Jon Woolf,
Sorry about the UK Remark. That was Canucklehead's Suspicion and I have no Idea what it is Based on.

To Put Radar's Reaction in Perspective, though. He may have Misunderstood you.

I guess I'll Respond to Canucklehead now since I do have his Unpublished Comment in my Email Box. This will be a Two Part Response.

The Two Unposted Comments from Canucklehead have the Times Stamps in my Word Processor of 10:07 AM & 3:44 PM, just in Case Someone Wants to Read them Later when they are Finally Posted.

Canucklehead,
In Order for People to Get Along with each other, a Little "Butt Kissing" is Occasionally Necessary. There is nothing Wrong with being Nice, rather than Obnoxious and Woolf is more Honest about the Facts then the Rest of you. For now, I'm Taking that as Honesty, not "Boot Licking" or Flattery. Hopefully, your Comment will be Posted soon, so that he will Know what you Actually Said.

It's too Bad that you Think that my Examples and my Annoyance over the Prejudice against the Free Speech of Christians is "Ridiculous". If I had to Choose between a Flattering Butt Kisser and someone who is Insensitive to what I'm saying, I'd Take the Former, rather than the Later, but your Approach has Absolutely no Chance at all of Changing the Minds of Anyone.

Citing an Example of a Time when Prayer is Allowed, does not Undue another Time in which there is an Attempt to Disallow Prayer, such as at Military Funerals. This Reasoning is Faulty and Diverts from the Issue.

The Phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. It is Actually a Misinterpretation of the First Amendment that Actually Reads like this...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is Quite Ironic that the Very Amendment that was Meant to Protect Freedom of Religion and Speech should be Used in Order to Deny these Rights to Christians and to Deny the Right to Prayer at a Funeral is Exactly that. The First Amendment was Written to Protect Religion from the Government, not the Government, or anyone else, from Religion.

To Allow is not the Same as "to Establish" and the Separation of Church and State Idea is a Distortion of what the Constitution Actually says. Read the Actual Words, Canucklehead. If you can do so without your Preconceived Bias, you will see what I mean.

Canucklehead,
"In the end, I believe that religion (organized or otherwise) has no place in public schools and that official references to christianity should be scrubbed."

That is Why Intelligent Design Scientists have made no Reference to any Particular Religion, nor to the Exact Nature of the Designer, only to the Evidence of Intelligent Design. Period. And that is why Intelligent Design was Seeking Academic Acceptance Apart from Creationism.

"I also believe that without childhood indoctrination Christianity (and more specifically evangelical Christianity) doesn't stand a chance."

Then how do you Explain the Lives that have been Changed after the Christian Conversion of those who have Never before Attended Church? Also, None of the Earliest Christians had been Indoctrinated from Childhood. The Earliest Ones Believed because they were There and their Convictions were so Strong that they were Willing to Die for it.

Lista said...

More for Canucklehead,
"And, Lista, first of all, the only thing that the Houston VA cemetery situation is an example of is that of an isolated incident. You should care because to imply that this incident is analogous to a larger problem in American society a lie."

The Mail that we Receive from the Many Groups that I have Mentioned above Show Evidence to the Contrary and you are the One who is Lying by Implying that these Things do not Occur. The Fact that Each Incident is Unique and not an Exact Duplicate of the others does not Make Each Incident an Isolated One.

The Fact that it is being Handled by the Courts is of no Comfort either because all these Court Cases are Highly Expensive and Annoying.

"Secondly, the mere idea that Christians in America are victims, or are some kind of persecuted group, is utterly laughable. You are the majority, by a long shot."

Yes, and we have been Called "the Silent Majority", because we were Quiet for too Long, while Deceptive Representatives of Minorities, such as Atheists, have Gained Control Over the Democratic Party and the Media. Also, much of the so called "Majority" can be Persuaded to Compromise in ways that they shouldn't.

Not all, so Called, "Christians" are Fully Committed to what Christianity Actually Stands for. Some People Claim that Title, even though they do not Attend Church and have no Clue what Christianity Actually is.

"Do you not care that they are not Christian?"

Well, I Care that you are Being Mislead, but I guess that is not what you Mean.

"Do you think they should 'go back to where they came from' and if so, where are the non-believers supposed to go? If you are 'offended' by 'Happy Holidays', can you see how someone of a different faith might feel when wished a Merry Christmas? BTW, I, an atheist, do not get offended in any way when someone says 'Merry Christmas.'"

I am not Offended by the Phrase "Happy Holidays", Canucklehead. I was Offended by being Corrected for Saying "Merry Christmas", for I have Every Right to Say it and the Numbers of People who are Actually in reality Offended by the Phrase "Merry Christmas" are Really Low.

No, I do not Think that Non-Believers should Leave the Country. I just Think that they should Realize that there are Christians here and that we Occasionally Say Absolutely Horrible Things, such as "Merry Christmas".

It just so Happens that all Speech is Protected by the Constitution, including that which could be Considered "Hate Speech".

"And, you say that Fox news isn't your 'Main Source', if it isn't Fox, just who is your main source of information?"

You don't Listen Very Well, do you? For I have already Listed the Organizations that Send us Mail, from which I have Learned about all Sorts of Attacks on the Freedom of Speech and Religion of Christians.

"Finally, I said you were intellectually lazy, not lazy.....In that you appear to leave the thinking up to others"

You see, to me, that is a Hypocrisy in you, because that is what I believe to be True of you. Also, a Person who Studies Extensively, while Blocking Out what goes Against their Already Accepted Belief and Bias is no Better then someone who does not Study at all and someone who Considers all that Goes Against their Own Point of View a Lie is not Thinking for Oneself.

Lista said...

Oh and BTW, Radar, Perhaps I should have Told you this Sooner, here on your Own Blog, that this Post has Inspired a Post on my Blog in which I have both Linked to and Quoted you. The Discussion that Followed has led me in an Interesting Direction, which I sure was God Inspired. Here is a Link to my Post...

Why do Bad Things & Suffering Happen to Christians?

Or Copy Paste...

http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-do-bad-things-suffering-happen-to.html

Meanwhile, I Hope that you are Feeling Better soon and will be Able to Continue with your Normal Mischief and Mayhem on the Web. lol.

Lista said...

I've Read your Unposted Comments, Canucklehead. I do not Know Why you are having this Problem so Extensively. At this Point, though, I'm Taking it as an Opportunity to Take a Break from Responding to you, for to be Honest, I Find you to be Quite Tiring. Radar seems to Think that I am more Informed than most of his Commenters.