Science has been corrupted to an extreme. Thanks to the government and grant money, scientists have altered their research to such an extent that it’s almost meaningless. Nowadays, scientists are directed to study only liberal progressive, diversity related, multi-culturalism topics that are racially and feminazi sensitive and politically correct. Grant money must be distributed in an affirmative action, non-white-privledge manner that supports those who are oppressed. This has caused science to de-evolve back to the dark ages, and scientists are the equivalent of soothsayers and charlatans.
[img[/img]
Liberalism
A normal state of a healthy person whose brain developed under the caring guidance of the progressive establishment.
As opposed to the rigid and bigoted Republican / Capitalist / Conservative brain, a Liberal / Socialist / Democrat brain is hard to map because it undergoes perpetual reshuffling of its centers and synapses. Generally it can be characterized by a compassionate concern for not taxing the rich enough, combined with generosity in spending other people’s money.
A liberal brain is known to have a well-developed “blame-America” synapse, a benign “Smarter Than Thou” tumor, a Global Warming Panic Center, the Entitlement Synapse, Moral Relativity Gray Area, and a “P.C. Lobe” responsible for speech codes, multiculturalism, racial quotas, and alternative lifestyles. The underdeveloped areas of a Liberal Brain usually include those that handle common sense, personal responsibility, sense of humor, patriotism, and work ethics.
The eternal motivational force that keeps a liberal going is typically a daily doze of Starbucks coffee combined with the dialectical struggle of the opposites – the feeling of being a victim of oppression and the feeling of guilt for oppressing the others at the same time.
AWD
May 26, 2014 10:48 am
I rest my case, I have proof (a scientific study):
Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
LA TImes
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.
The results show “there are two cognitive styles — a liberal style and a conservative style,” said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from “very liberal” to “very conservative.” They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.
M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.
Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.
Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.
Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results “provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity.”
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a “flip-flopper” for changing his mind about the conflict.
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
“There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science,” said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.
Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.
Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights.
Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results.
“Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree?” Amodio asked. “Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along.”
Welshman
May 26, 2014 11:11 am
Sutck,
Priceless, the truth hurts.
Hope@ZeroKelvin
May 26, 2014 11:21 am
Well that graph certainly explains the AGW “scientific community”.
However, I think that it doesn’t explain the whole thing.
Here is my take on The Scientific Method in the Age of Obama.
1) Obtain advanced “degree” from online university with student loans, food stamps, section 8 housing and suing the shit out of them to get said degree because the university has clearly discriminated against some immutable characteristic you have rather than you were too stoopid to pass the courses.
2) Obtain federal grant monies to study Problem X, which is on the lines of some “crisis” involving people or problems that 99% of the country has never heard of.
3) Spend said grant monies on hookers and blow.
4) Submit emergency appeal for more money as Problem X is clearly more difficult and complex than expected and it you can’t complete the study the world will surely end.
5) Spend the extra money on bling, a Cadillac Escalade and a trip to Vegas.
6) Change address frequently to avoid the notices for payback of the student loans. Change phone number frequently to avoid contact with the granting authority about your progress in studying Problem X.
7) After 3rd appeal for an additional grant extension is denied, fabricate data out of whole cloth after a weekend of heavy drinking and choom smoking.
8) Submit your paper to a journal with peer-reviewers sympathetic to your “struggles” and “obstacles” because of your immutable characteristics.
9) When the paper is met with howls of derision from the real scientific community, sue the living shit out of them for libel and sic Eric Holder on them for perpetuating a “hate crime” against you.
10) Rake in the dough after appearances on Oprah, Melissa Harris-Perry and Maddow – and get a trip to the East Room to stage a hashtag selfie with Michelle Obama about the importance of Problem X. All student loans are “forgiven” due to the vital nature of your work.
11) Barack Obama gives you the National Medal of Science for your “outstanding work in solving Problem X and contributing to our scientific diversity and opening our minds to new knowledge”.
There ya’ go. How to Ride the Tide of Incompetence, Political Cronyism, Immutable Characteristic Grievance Mongering, Liberal Guilt and Sloth to the Highest Honors in 11 Easy Steps.
Hmm, I think somebody has already done that……
bb
May 26, 2014 12:44 pm
This is why I mock with contempt the theory of evolution. Never been observed in a laboratory. Never been repeated in laboratory experiments. It’s all just more godless bullshit men use to justify their own depravity.If there is no GOD then no judgment. You can justify and rationalize any behavior including mass murder. Like Hitler .Stalin .Both were evolutionists as all the recent mass Murderers.
flash
May 26, 2014 3:16 pm
The state of academia in modern America.What was the topic? WTFK?I think we can safely ascertain from the rhetoric
They say the niggers always already queer, that’s exactly the point! It means the impact is that the that the is the impact term, uh, to the afraid, uh, the, that it is a case term to the affirmative because, we, uh, we’re saying that queer bodies are not able to survive the necessarily means of the body. Uh, uh, the niggers is not able to survive….
Uh, man’s sole “jabringing” object disfigure religion trauma and nubs, uh, the, inside the trauma of representation that turns into the black child devouring and identifying with the stories and into the white culture brought up, uh, de de de de de, dink, and add subjectively like a white man, the black man!
When the nigger, uh, sees these pains and suffering that he can only, uh, envision himself that he, uh, does not see another nigger that he, uh, can feel sympathy for or embrace, but rather, uh, that, a-bluh, that that otherness gets obliterated….
Uh, says that the the the way status co works is through, uh, whiteness allowing, uh, forcing other bodies to tell, uh, nearations of whiteness in, uh, the violences that whiteness does me, uh, say that that is the link that we will go for!
flash
May 26, 2014 3:22 pm
as I was saying before WP decided to prematurely post. What we can safely ascertain from this national ward winning debate teams ‘ rhetoric is the message that the “nigger is not able to survive” which point BTW ,regardless of the African -American teams prowess in debate yet remains unproven.
flash
May 26, 2014 3:36 pm
It’s not enough for science to dispense proven theory -oh yes , there’s also plenty of junk masquerading as theory., unproven ..e.g. origin of specie/race, dark matter, string theory, the Higgs boson god particle ect. we now must get science-at no cheap rate, I might add- involved in determining by what moral grounds do robots have the authority to kill humans……cuz’ the mastah said so, I would presume to be enough for the bots, thereby saving US $$$$$$$$$$ …But WTF do I know.
Isn’t science great?Once military men could only kill a handful of men a day, individually with swords and pike, now they can kill an entire planet in a few short hours.And we call this progress..
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/23898-moral-robots-for-the-pentagon-let%E2%80%99s-work-on-pentagon-morality-first
Moral Robots for the Pentagon? Let’s Work on Pentagon Morality First
The Office of Naval Research (ONR), the think tank of the Navy, has put together a team to figure out how they can inject human morals into the computers of future fighting robots, so they will have judgment on who to kill and when. They have signed contracts totaling $7.5 million, employing outside consultants to further this goal. As outlined on the website Extreme Tech:
le.
ZombieDawg
May 26, 2014 7:56 pm
Explains the myth of global warming…
ThePessimisticChemist
May 27, 2014 9:25 am
I got into a bit of an argument with my wife’s best friend this weekend, climate change of course.
The major questions were unanswerable of course, and she was getting more and more worked up.
I change my opinions based on the facts at hand, and the ability of the opposing parties to satisfy my questions.
Climate science at this point is so politicized it has become its own pseudo-religion, and a down turn in global temperature would deal absolutely devastating damage to scientific credibility in the public eye.
“Never been observed in a laboratory. Never been repeated in laboratory experiments.”
I can support natural selection with a handful of fruit flies and some DDT over the course of a month or two.
As for large scale evolution, I think we (scientists) are missing some pieces to the puzzle still.
The primodial soup getting kicked off by lightning/gamma rays right now looks like the best start to evolution, but it still doesn’t explain the entire chain of events.
Something important is missing, its not yet fully understood, but at this juncture evolution is the best supported theory and I really don’t see how people still completely reject it.
The fossil record and genetics demonstrate the progression quite nicely.
PS: Personally, I think the role of viruses in evolution is grossly underestimated.
TE
May 27, 2014 12:49 pm
@bb, I am truly trying to ignore you, but this gem, “…“Never been observed in a laboratory. Never been repeated in laboratory experiments.” deserves a response.
Yes dear, we have been unable to replicate (that means do again) hundreds, if not thousands, of years of life, along with dozens and dozens of generations with actual lifespans in a lab.
No shit.
How would you propose to do such a study? Hold dogs, elephants, ants and humans hostage for 1000 years and then publish the results?
Seriously? Really, I am dying to know how we create LIFESPANS and generations of animals/organisms that live decades in a lab with scientists that only have ONE life to give to the research?
WTF, bb, just wtf. No wonder you cling to your misguided beliefs about the bible and god, you apparently can only regurgitate what others tell you with little, to no, ability to use logic or reason to establish your beliefs.
No wonder you support cops, they are your only chance if a group of starving six year olds decide to breach your defenses and take your food.
flash
May 27, 2014 1:23 pm
TE, since you seem to be smarter than one of the ten most prominent chemists in the world, I take it you won’t mind explaining to all US bitter clingers of bibles and guns just exactly how this so -called proven theory of evolution works?I’m sure that Professor James M. Tour would be much obliged of your clearing the air on this monkeys form fish business?..eh? Because science?
A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution
… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”
If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.
But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.
The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.
Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.
I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)
TPC
May 27, 2014 1:41 pm
@flash – The exact mechanisms are not currently understood, not bad given we didn’t uncover natural selection until the mid/late 1800s.
Yet we still have a plethora of data supporting that these changes do occur in a natural way, and in a very random way, with divergent and convergent evolution wildly rampant in the various kingdoms.
No single science is completely understood flash, they all have mysteries waiting to be discovered. I’d be a piss poor scientist if I didn’t freely admit that my own knowledge of of my chosen field is quite limited. Honestly, the more I learn, the less I feel I know.
PS: Science answers “how”, religion/philosophy answer “why”. Get your nasty little faith out of my science and I won’t use my science to calculate the number of prayers that go unanswered each day.
TE
May 27, 2014 1:47 pm
@Flash, I NEVER claimed to support “evolution.”
What I asked was how in the fuck do you replicate thousands of years of existence, birth, rebirth, death, in a fucking lab?
You go off on a cut and paste tangent about some biblical stuff, which I didn’t read.
This is what I know, penguins that have existed in Antarctica have fundamental differences from penguins that exist in Africa. Frogs in Madagascar are differently adapted to their environments than frogs in the ponds out back.
Why you yanking my chain man? @bb is a hypocritical, judgmental, uneducated, and non-critical-thinking asswipe that begs to be smacked down with logic.
Then you arrive on the scene reminding me he isn’t the only one lurking around here.
Peace
flash
May 27, 2014 2:01 pm
TE, the very fact you assumed the C&P to be biblical told me you didn’t read it..but yet you judge…because science. Maybe If you didn’t have a chain dragging , it would get yanked.
When I see the logic you claim to spew, I’ll be glad to acknowledge it…but, on this bb right…until evolution is proven theory it should not taught in any public school as such.If you want to pay for you kids to assume something based on pure conjecture, sure that’s your business, put them in a private school…but as for me, I don’t want my tax money to go for funding bullshit to be taught in school as fact….It’s not even and or biblical teachings.Evolution theory cannot stand alone on it’s own merits regardless.
flash
May 27, 2014 2:08 pm
TPC, I seen the “plethora” of evidence supposedly backing up evolution and all the fer’ shure’ missing links that were until they after close examination were not. When the fossil is found that shows the evidence of actually metamorphosis of one creature into another I’ll be convinced.
My ” nasty” little faith has nothing to do with the theory of evolution being chock full of so many holes, your sophistry notwithstanding.
TE
May 27, 2014 2:08 pm
Again Flash, I didn’t SUPPORT evolution, I didn’t say a word about teaching it in schools.
What I continue to ask is just HOW THE HELL can you prove something in a lab that takes THOUSANDS of years to happen?
It CANNOT ever be proved to your specifications. EVER.
Neither can creationism.
Science is nothing but currently affirmed guesses. They change constantly. What is taught today, believed today, affirmed today, is constantly found to be incorrect or incomplete tomorrow.
So should NO scientific theories be taught?
YOU are the one insisting on making it a religious argument.
I was just pointing out that we cannot reproduce thousands of years in a petri dish without it taking thousands of years.
Again, your want to make everything about your book and your god overrides any opinions that do not support your own.
My god laughs at this, as he knows it is entirely possible – and highly probable – that both sides are both right.
Your god wants me to burn in hell for daring to use the brain he created for me.
Peace Flash, I’m done arguing with idiots for today.
flash
May 27, 2014 2:12 pm
I defer to the great and profound wisdom of Samuel Clemens
“What is Man? Man is a noisome bacillus whom Our Heavenly Father created because he was disappointed in the monkey.”
― Mark Twain
[img[/img]
[img[/img]
flash
May 27, 2014 2:22 pm
TE, in answer to your query , the lab of empirical evidence has already been established.No recorded history in the last three thousand years has noted ever a bug scarfing fish taking to the trees in search of nuts..your lab results are in…happy now?
BTW, my feelings on faith have nada to do with negating any premedical decadence supporting evolution, because none exist. and until a holy heaven dwelling spirit fish inspires a troupe of cave hanging spider monkeys to pen a handbooks of holy living aimed at all of cognitive aware creatures, even the sweet singing flying slug , I’ll hold off on any opinions on that.
..peace to you as well.
Pirate Jo
May 27, 2014 3:12 pm
“If there is no GOD then no judgment.”
Allow me to introduce … ME! I am plenty judgmental.
ThePessimisticChemist
May 27, 2014 4:20 pm
@flash – “No recorded history in the last three thousand years has noted ever a bug scarfing fish taking to the trees in search of nuts..your lab results are in…happy now?”
I always love when this argument gets trotted out. It lets me know its time to exit stage left as its clear the other party just wants a fight and doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how evolution functions.
PS: Lungfish walk over land with oddly shaped fins and the pacu fish eat nuts. Both opportunistically eat insects as needed.
There are also several species of fish that crawl up trees and can modify their respiratory systems to survive outside of water for prolonged periods of time.
So….in ten seconds worth of thinking I found fish that can survive on land, can climb trees, eat nuts(and also insects), and survive outside of water for prolonged periods of time. What a sad attempt at a strawman.
I think what pisses guys like you off so much is that these changes happen over the course of lifetimes plural, not lifetime singular. You won’t see that “single change” because thats not how it works, not at all.
Seriously man, I can’t believe you don’t even try to understand something you so vehemently oppose. I mean, I know these concepts aren’t that easy, but its not like I’m trying to teach you quantum mechanics or neural surgery here.
bb
May 27, 2014 5:02 pm
PC ,TE ,I mock you with contempt. Pirate Jo, let’s. have some kids to improve the evolutionary chain.
flash
May 27, 2014 5:11 pm
Ok pissy, I concede..It’s just me and a chemist that happens to be the one of the worlds foremost authority’s on synthetic molecules that aren’t convinced by root clambering fish or fish forced to flap short distances across the mud flat to the next drainage ditch as proof of evolution… but a world famous scientoady, you probably know best.
Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution
Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.
Retired officers poised to profit after Pentagon’s alarmist climate change report
Urgent Obama call can funnel funds to projects
Retired military officers deeply involved in the climate change movement — and some in companies positioned to profit from it — spearheaded an alarmist global warming report this month that calls on the Defense Department to ramp up spending on what it calls a man-made problem.
The report, which the Obama administration immediately hailed as a call to action, was issued not by a private advocacy group but by a Pentagon-financed think tank that trumpets “absolute objectivity.” The research was funded by a climate change group that is also one of the think tank’s main customers.
The May 13 report came from the military advisory board within CNA Corp., a nonprofit based in Alexandria, Virginia, that includes the Center for Naval Analyses, a Navy-financed group that also gets contracts from other Pentagon units. CNA also operates the Institute for Public Research.
Stucky
May 28, 2014 8:11 am
“Evolution has just been dealt its death blow.” ———– flash
“God is dead” ——— Marx, and others
Both statements are utterly foolish.
flash, what if God decided to use evolution as part of his creation process? Or, is your God too small for that?
flash
May 28, 2014 8:37 am
Stuck, the fact that I believe in creation should be enough parlay my belief in intelligent design.It’s the lighting striking the primordial ooze bullshit that I can’t accept…and neither can a lot my scientifically astute men than I. Your welcome to believe WETFYW , but please don’t presume the authority to tell me what to…
FWIW, these words are not mine but : Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)
2. Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)
The second name on my list should be even more embarrassing for you, Zack. I’m referring to Professor Richard Smalley (1943-2005), winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Now I noticed, Zack, that right at the top of your list of Nobel Laureates is the name of Sir Harold Kroto, who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Richard Smalley. So now I ask: which Nobel Prize winner are we supposed to believe, Kroto or Smalley?
(a) Evidence that Professor Richard Smalley was opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution
You want proof that Professor Richard Smalley was an opponent of evolution? Be my guest. First, in an address that Dr. Richard Smalley gave at the Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation (October 3, 2004) Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin versus the Bible’s “Genesis”; then he pointed out:
The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.
But wait, there’s more! Smalley also invoked cosmic fine-tuning as a scientific argument for God’s existence, and stated publicly that he had been persuaded on strictly scientific grounds that evolution was impossible.
(b) Dr. Smalley on cosmic fine-tuning
In a letter sent to the Hope College Alumni Banquet where he was awarded a Distinguished Alumni Award in May 2005, Dr. Richard Smalley wrote:
Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ.
Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
(c) Dr. Smalley’s late-life scientific conversion to Old Earth Creationism
Towards the end of his life, Dr. Richard Smalley became an Old Earth creationist, after reading the books “Origins of Life” and “Who Was Adam?”, written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows:
Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death. (Emphasis mine – VJT.)
“Puts the evolutionary model to death”?! These are pretty strong words for a Nobel scientist, Zack. So I hope you can understand that when I posed the question above, “Which Nobel Prize winner are we supposed to believe, Kroto or Smalley?”, I wasn’t being flippant. If a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry thinks it is now clear that evolution could not have occurred, then I think that high school students in Louisiana are entitled to hear why. Wouldn’t you agree?
Now, I’m sure that alert readers who checked out the last link will have noticed that at the time when Professor Smalley made those remarks in 2005, Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fuz Rana (who are Old Earth creationists) had spoken out against the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools – not because it was too supernaturalistic, but because it wasn’t sufficiently scientific. In particular, they claimed that ID didn’t make any testable, falsifiable predictions, whereas their Old Earth creationist model made lots of predictions. Well, I’m happy to say that this concern has been addressed. Signature in the Cell, by the best-selling book by Intelligent Design proponent Dr. Stephen Meyer, contains an entire appendix (18 pages) of scientific predictions made by the theory of Intelligent Design. There’s a list of a dozen detailed predictions at the end of the chapter.
What’s more, Professor Richard Smalley was on good terms with leading Intelligent Design proponent Professor William Dembski. Shortly before his death, they even had lunch together. Professor Dembski reported on their meeting in a brief obituary he wrote for Dr. Smalley:
Rick Smalley, a Nobel laureate in chemistry at Rice University, died earlier this week. You can read about his scientific contributions and passing here. I had the privilege of having lunch with Rick this summer. The meeting was arranged by his pastor at Houston’s Second Baptist Church, my friend Ben Young. Rick had in the previous year become a Christian as well as a member of Second Baptist Church, and begun to express his doubts about Darwinism publicly (see here and here). I reported on my lunch meeting with Rick here, though to spare him harrassment I did not mention him by name. Rick’s prediction at the end of his life was that ID would be mainstreamed in five years and that evolution in its conventional materialistic sense would be dead within ten. It will be interesting to see if his predictions are borne out.
Did you notice that, Zack? Professor Smalley was a Nobel laureate in chemistry at Rice University. Your university. It might be worth checking out how he came to espouse a view diametrically opposed to Darwinism.
Well, what did Dr. Smalley say to Professor Dembski over lunch? Here’s a report by Dembski:
I had an extended meeting today with two of the nation’s top scientists, one of them a Nobel laureate. The Nobel laureate spoke of evolution as “bankrupt” and thought ID would be mainstreamed in five years. The other scientist was not as optimistic about this timetable, but agreed with his colleague’s assessment of evolution. He also noted that with the Internet it wasn’t possible for professors to command the deference of students as in times past. For instance, whereas in the past he was able to throw together problems sets simply by cribbing from textbooks, today he finds that students need merely consult the Internet to find perfect solutions to such problems. Professors are therefore no longer the sole repository of answers for students. Accordingly, the scientific priesthood is undergoing a shake-up. This is all to the good of ID, which thrives as the subversive instrument par excellence for exposing priestcraft dressed in a scientific lab coat.
BTW, stuck , how could God possible be dead if he never existed?
[img[/img]
bb
May 28, 2014 8:50 am
Stucky , your a loathsome Fuck who knows nothing about evolutionary theory and once again you are calling GOD a liar. GOD says he created everything not evolution. Evolution goes back to the first Babylonian empire called Sumter. There’s where most of this satanic shit got started.Charles Darwin discovered nothing.Evolution in one form or another had been around for Six thousand years.All the first false religions start with evolution. Satan was the first evolutionist.Remember anything you say that doesn’t square with the biblical account is a lie.You got a bad habit of calling GOD a liar.Bad boy,Bad boy.
Stucky
May 28, 2014 8:53 am
” ….. but please don’t presume the authority to tell me what to… ” ——– flash
What the hell are you talking about? I don’t presume any authority over you, or anyone else, ever. You are way to emotional over the evolution vs creation debate.
.
“…the fact that I believe in creation should be enough parlay my belief in intelligent design.” —flash
Not really. The Catholic Church accepts BOTH creation AND evolution. And even some fundy Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, accept the role of evolution in the design process.
And for the last fucking time, I am NOT an atheist.
Stucky
May 28, 2014 8:56 am
“GOD says he created everything” ———– bb, aka Village Idiot
1. God created EVERYTHING.
2. Evolution is a PART OF “everything”.
3. Therefore, God created evolution.
Thanks for making my point crystal clear.
hardscrabble farmer
May 28, 2014 9:08 am
The disagreement between those who believe in God and those who profess to be atheists appears to me to be more about dogma than anything substantial. Both agree on the fundamental act of creation and neither deny the evidence of its existence as seen in the natural world around us. The division comes when we chose which catalyst we believe in.
It reminds me of the old joke where the guy offers a woman a million dollars for a night of passion and she accepts. He then lowers his offer to $50 and she asks him “What kind of woman do you think I am?” and he responds, “That’s been established, now we’re just haggling over the price.
Creation happened, life exists and we are capable of cogitating the cause and purpose, but no one denies the observable reality.
underfire
May 28, 2014 9:23 am
Kind of agree with Stucky,
Why is evolution considered at odds with creationism?
bb
May 28, 2014 9:24 am
Stucky, GOD created the material world but not an Ideology that’s denied his existence.Man created evolution and it is another false religion that people use to justify their own depravity.
bb
May 28, 2014 9:33 am
Farmer , you can’t have it both ways knucklehead. Either GOD created the material world. or he didn’t. There’s no in between , no middle ground , no Gray area and no extra credit.If you say evolution is part.of God’s creation then you to are calling GOD a liar because evolution is a lie.
bb
May 28, 2014 9:38 am
Under fire , because evolutionary ideology denies the existence of GOD.At least in the west.You .people cannot be this stupid. Think .It’s why GOD gave you a brain.
hardscrabble farmer
May 28, 2014 10:01 am
bb-
I stand in awe of your personal understanding of God and his creation, I only see through a glass darkly.
To reiterate my point; Believers and atheists alike agree on the fact that creation exists. Both agree that there is an agency behind that creation. Both have names for it (God, Big Bang). Both agree that life itself exists where once there was nothing.
Have I missed anything else?
I work in the natural world, every day of my life. I use natural selection the way a carpenter uses a hammer. I would hazard a guess that most atheists have confused natural selection with evolution in the same way that most religious people confuse a belief in God with the acceptance of church dogma. Both groups rely on a belief in something that is neither demonstrable, nor knowable (at present).
That there was a creation is obvious to all, who or what was the creator is the great mystery of the ages, but it must exist because life is the evidence.
Carry on.
AWD
May 28, 2014 10:03 am
God created evolution. God’s power drives evolution, the ordering of molecules in the face of entropy. Then God created bb, and everything blew up in his face.
What happened to bb
[img[/img]
underfire
May 28, 2014 10:32 am
bb I think it’s you that doesn’t get it. How does the theory of evolution deny that God created Life?
More likely is that
1. Religion came along
2. Some non religious types than sought to discredit religion, hanging their hat on the notion that if it can be observed or explained scientifically, than God didn’t do it. That is, God only works by what we consider magic.
3. Religious types, still being not to far removed from the amebo and infuriated at that attack on their beliefs, went barging into that nonsense argument and so denied the existence of evolution.
I see no conflict between creation and evolution. As for myself, I believe that there is an unseen spiritual dimension, I believe strongly in God and that a very strong and close being came to the earth (Christ), and that there are opposing spirits.
bb
May 28, 2014 10:36 am
Farmer , AWD ,…You say evolution or natural selection helps GOD.You don’t seem to understand that both are lies. Why would GOD choose a godless ideology to explain creation?I stand in awe of your inability to see your own blindness. AWD ,the only reason you say you believe in evolution. is to get alone with others in your profession.You are scared of what others doctors will think of you.You both fear man.Carry on.
bb
May 28, 2014 10:40 am
Under fire , I am glad your are not an atheist but the GOD you worship is the GOD.of your imagination.
flash
May 28, 2014 10:45 am
.
“…the fact that I believe in creation should be enough parlay my belief in intelligent design.” —flash
Not really. The Catholic Church accepts BOTH creation AND evolution. And even some fundy Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, accept the role of evolution in the design process. Stucky
What part of “intelligent design” do you not understand?
AWD
May 28, 2014 10:46 am
and the Lord did sayeth:
Better to be a cockroach scurrying in a Ghetto in Camden than bb on a blog
[img[/img]
hardscrabble farmer
May 28, 2014 10:52 am
bb,
I am normally the soul of probity, but clearly that approach doesn’t work with everyone. I never wrote, nor have I ever said “evolution and natural selection helps GOD.” Please don’t put words in my mouth. What I said was that natural selection exists because I use it as a tool in my life the way mathematicians use numbers, carpenters hammers, surgeons scalpels. It is an observable reality. It is factual and it is undeniable. I further stated that I believe (I don’t know) that most atheists have confused the theory of evolution with the reality of natural selection and based on what most of them either say or write, that belief is almost entirely built upon FAITH, not scientific method. If you read that a scientist did an experiment and then support the conclusions without repeating the experiment yourself you are operating in the realm of faith, not proof. For example I know that water freezes at 32 degrees because I have observed this fact for myself often enough to know that this is a fact. Anything I would have to say about splitting atoms or space flight would be fact free because I cannot replicate these types of phenomenon so I eschew commentary. I like to discuss things I have absolute knowledge of or listen to others who do.
You ask why God would choose a “godless ideology” and this is an imponderable because neither you, not I knows the mind of God. The fact that natural selection exists as well as pain, death, crime, sin, etc. does not mean that there is no God, only that we haven’t the intellectual depth, nor the factual certainty of the purpose of those things.
ThePessimisticChemist
May 28, 2014 11:08 am
Hah, this thread is still going? Guys, you are barking up the wrong tree. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
As for evolution, if it makes people feel better, I normally teach my religious students not to view evolution as heresy, but rather as the tool that their god used to shape the natural world.
Much like how plate tectonics and gravity shaped the planet itself, evolution has led us to where we are today.
flash
May 28, 2014 11:11 am
Some of the finest minds in science support a belief in a creator and as the far as the existence of God and intelligent design goes, in the realm of science, myself , not having any training in such fields, I’ll defer to their expertise.
One thing should be made clear, no man regardless his rhetoric stating otherwise is a representative of God on earth. It is God that is the representative of all humanity, and as the Representative of mankind , God granted all human the gift of free will.
God is not responsible for the re-gifting of this great gift to any secular cause…e.g . a government instituted by men.The ruin wrought by government at the behest of mankind is all mankind own doing and cannot be laid at the feet of God. And until all humanity understands they, in the eyes of God are responsible for their own action , they’ll continue to rape , rob and murder in the name of government.Make no mistake about it.This nefarious conduct cannot be attributed to God , regress the whether they call themselves a Christian ,nation or not.
We get what we ask for and receive what we deserve.
1 Samuel 8 (New International Version)
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+8
Hope@ZeroKelvin
May 28, 2014 11:18 am
Here is something interesting.
The guys on Sirius Progress radio have declared that there will be no discussion of AGW or evolution as all that “science” is settled.
The radio hosts will not even take a call from anybody that wishes to discuss this “science”! (So who has the closed minds NOW?)
Anybody that disagrees with that will be remanded to the nearest re-education camp apparently, or shot preferably from the liberal progressive point of view as that means overall less carbon emitted.
@Stucky, bb: Guys, guys, our science at this point is inadequate to analyze the miracle of Life, its origin and continuously changing forms of it. The real question, in my mind, is why does Life happen at all? Why aren’t we just formless goo sitting on rocks just whizzing around the universe? That would certainly be more tidy! Why does molecules bumping against each other always result in some structured life form? If it is a totally random process, organized structures were NEVER occur, I think somebody did the math on that once.
As a scientist, as a physician, I remain in total awe at the complexity of the one life form I have the most training in- human beings. The more I learn, and we are at the point of sorting out the most minute of sub-cellular processes, the more I am convinced of a Creator or Intelligent Design. Perhaps I can’t think in geologic time, perhaps my (limited) intellect can’t fathom the incredibly elegant scientific processes behind all this, I dunno.
Mebbe it’s all just Quantum and “God” is the ultimate manipulator of it.
Tim
May 28, 2014 11:23 am
Here’s something I learned from an outside source (Thanks, llpoh) and I have observed it enough times for myself to consider it factual:
You are wasting your time engaging bb in a conversation of any kind. Further, when you try to get him to see any point other than his own, it’s futile. In fact, llpoh, called me “a fool.”
Since then, I have taken llpoh’s words to heart, and ignore bb on all posts. Thus, I repeat llpoh’s words of wisdom:
“You are all fools to enter into discussion with bb.”
bb
May 28, 2014 11:25 am
Farmer, can’t know the mind of GOD .That’s rubbish. That’s why GOD gave us the BIBLE. To know something about the mind or Spirit of GOD.Read the biblical account. Natural selection is more rubbish. Like time + random chance +unlimited mutations +more time =creation. Farmer you are delusional.Good grief.
[img
[/img]
[img
?imageId=22614330[/img]
Science has been corrupted to an extreme. Thanks to the government and grant money, scientists have altered their research to such an extent that it’s almost meaningless. Nowadays, scientists are directed to study only liberal progressive, diversity related, multi-culturalism topics that are racially and feminazi sensitive and politically correct. Grant money must be distributed in an affirmative action, non-white-privledge manner that supports those who are oppressed. This has caused science to de-evolve back to the dark ages, and scientists are the equivalent of soothsayers and charlatans.
[img
[/img]
Liberalism
A normal state of a healthy person whose brain developed under the caring guidance of the progressive establishment.
As opposed to the rigid and bigoted Republican / Capitalist / Conservative brain, a Liberal / Socialist / Democrat brain is hard to map because it undergoes perpetual reshuffling of its centers and synapses. Generally it can be characterized by a compassionate concern for not taxing the rich enough, combined with generosity in spending other people’s money.
A liberal brain is known to have a well-developed “blame-America” synapse, a benign “Smarter Than Thou” tumor, a Global Warming Panic Center, the Entitlement Synapse, Moral Relativity Gray Area, and a “P.C. Lobe” responsible for speech codes, multiculturalism, racial quotas, and alternative lifestyles. The underdeveloped areas of a Liberal Brain usually include those that handle common sense, personal responsibility, sense of humor, patriotism, and work ethics.
The eternal motivational force that keeps a liberal going is typically a daily doze of Starbucks coffee combined with the dialectical struggle of the opposites – the feeling of being a victim of oppression and the feeling of guilt for oppressing the others at the same time.
I rest my case, I have proof (a scientific study):
Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
LA TImes
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.
The results show “there are two cognitive styles — a liberal style and a conservative style,” said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from “very liberal” to “very conservative.” They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.
M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.
Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.
Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.
Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results “provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity.”
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a “flip-flopper” for changing his mind about the conflict.
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
“There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science,” said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.
Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.
Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights.
Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results.
“Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree?” Amodio asked. “Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along.”
Sutck,
Priceless, the truth hurts.
Well that graph certainly explains the AGW “scientific community”.
However, I think that it doesn’t explain the whole thing.
Here is my take on The Scientific Method in the Age of Obama.
1) Obtain advanced “degree” from online university with student loans, food stamps, section 8 housing and suing the shit out of them to get said degree because the university has clearly discriminated against some immutable characteristic you have rather than you were too stoopid to pass the courses.
2) Obtain federal grant monies to study Problem X, which is on the lines of some “crisis” involving people or problems that 99% of the country has never heard of.
3) Spend said grant monies on hookers and blow.
4) Submit emergency appeal for more money as Problem X is clearly more difficult and complex than expected and it you can’t complete the study the world will surely end.
5) Spend the extra money on bling, a Cadillac Escalade and a trip to Vegas.
6) Change address frequently to avoid the notices for payback of the student loans. Change phone number frequently to avoid contact with the granting authority about your progress in studying Problem X.
7) After 3rd appeal for an additional grant extension is denied, fabricate data out of whole cloth after a weekend of heavy drinking and choom smoking.
8) Submit your paper to a journal with peer-reviewers sympathetic to your “struggles” and “obstacles” because of your immutable characteristics.
9) When the paper is met with howls of derision from the real scientific community, sue the living shit out of them for libel and sic Eric Holder on them for perpetuating a “hate crime” against you.
10) Rake in the dough after appearances on Oprah, Melissa Harris-Perry and Maddow – and get a trip to the East Room to stage a hashtag selfie with Michelle Obama about the importance of Problem X. All student loans are “forgiven” due to the vital nature of your work.
11) Barack Obama gives you the National Medal of Science for your “outstanding work in solving Problem X and contributing to our scientific diversity and opening our minds to new knowledge”.
There ya’ go. How to Ride the Tide of Incompetence, Political Cronyism, Immutable Characteristic Grievance Mongering, Liberal Guilt and Sloth to the Highest Honors in 11 Easy Steps.
Hmm, I think somebody has already done that……
This is why I mock with contempt the theory of evolution. Never been observed in a laboratory. Never been repeated in laboratory experiments. It’s all just more godless bullshit men use to justify their own depravity.If there is no GOD then no judgment. You can justify and rationalize any behavior including mass murder. Like Hitler .Stalin .Both were evolutionists as all the recent mass Murderers.
The state of academia in modern America.What was the topic? WTFK?I think we can safely ascertain from the rhetoric
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCx2uGBhvEc
They say the niggers always already queer, that’s exactly the point! It means the impact is that the that the is the impact term, uh, to the afraid, uh, the, that it is a case term to the affirmative because, we, uh, we’re saying that queer bodies are not able to survive the necessarily means of the body. Uh, uh, the niggers is not able to survive….
Uh, man’s sole “jabringing” object disfigure religion trauma and nubs, uh, the, inside the trauma of representation that turns into the black child devouring and identifying with the stories and into the white culture brought up, uh, de de de de de, dink, and add subjectively like a white man, the black man!
When the nigger, uh, sees these pains and suffering that he can only, uh, envision himself that he, uh, does not see another nigger that he, uh, can feel sympathy for or embrace, but rather, uh, that, a-bluh, that that otherness gets obliterated….
Uh, says that the the the way status co works is through, uh, whiteness allowing, uh, forcing other bodies to tell, uh, nearations of whiteness in, uh, the violences that whiteness does me, uh, say that that is the link that we will go for!
as I was saying before WP decided to prematurely post. What we can safely ascertain from this national ward winning debate teams ‘ rhetoric is the message that the “nigger is not able to survive” which point BTW ,regardless of the African -American teams prowess in debate yet remains unproven.
It’s not enough for science to dispense proven theory -oh yes , there’s also plenty of junk masquerading as theory., unproven ..e.g. origin of specie/race, dark matter, string theory, the Higgs boson god particle ect. we now must get science-at no cheap rate, I might add- involved in determining by what moral grounds do robots have the authority to kill humans……cuz’ the mastah said so, I would presume to be enough for the bots, thereby saving US $$$$$$$$$$ …But WTF do I know.
Isn’t science great?Once military men could only kill a handful of men a day, individually with swords and pike, now they can kill an entire planet in a few short hours.And we call this progress..
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/23898-moral-robots-for-the-pentagon-let%E2%80%99s-work-on-pentagon-morality-first
Moral Robots for the Pentagon? Let’s Work on Pentagon Morality First
The Office of Naval Research (ONR), the think tank of the Navy, has put together a team to figure out how they can inject human morals into the computers of future fighting robots, so they will have judgment on who to kill and when. They have signed contracts totaling $7.5 million, employing outside consultants to further this goal. As outlined on the website Extreme Tech:
le.
Explains the myth of global warming…
I got into a bit of an argument with my wife’s best friend this weekend, climate change of course.
The major questions were unanswerable of course, and she was getting more and more worked up.
I change my opinions based on the facts at hand, and the ability of the opposing parties to satisfy my questions.
Climate science at this point is so politicized it has become its own pseudo-religion, and a down turn in global temperature would deal absolutely devastating damage to scientific credibility in the public eye.
“Never been observed in a laboratory. Never been repeated in laboratory experiments.”
I can support natural selection with a handful of fruit flies and some DDT over the course of a month or two.
As for large scale evolution, I think we (scientists) are missing some pieces to the puzzle still.
The primodial soup getting kicked off by lightning/gamma rays right now looks like the best start to evolution, but it still doesn’t explain the entire chain of events.
Something important is missing, its not yet fully understood, but at this juncture evolution is the best supported theory and I really don’t see how people still completely reject it.
The fossil record and genetics demonstrate the progression quite nicely.
PS: Personally, I think the role of viruses in evolution is grossly underestimated.
@bb, I am truly trying to ignore you, but this gem, “…“Never been observed in a laboratory. Never been repeated in laboratory experiments.” deserves a response.
Yes dear, we have been unable to replicate (that means do again) hundreds, if not thousands, of years of life, along with dozens and dozens of generations with actual lifespans in a lab.
No shit.
How would you propose to do such a study? Hold dogs, elephants, ants and humans hostage for 1000 years and then publish the results?
Seriously? Really, I am dying to know how we create LIFESPANS and generations of animals/organisms that live decades in a lab with scientists that only have ONE life to give to the research?
WTF, bb, just wtf. No wonder you cling to your misguided beliefs about the bible and god, you apparently can only regurgitate what others tell you with little, to no, ability to use logic or reason to establish your beliefs.
No wonder you support cops, they are your only chance if a group of starving six year olds decide to breach your defenses and take your food.
TE, since you seem to be smarter than one of the ten most prominent chemists in the world, I take it you won’t mind explaining to all US bitter clingers of bibles and guns just exactly how this so -called proven theory of evolution works?I’m sure that Professor James M. Tour would be much obliged of your clearing the air on this monkeys form fish business?..eh? Because science?
A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution
… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.
I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.
I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”
If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.
But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.
The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.
Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.
I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)
@flash – The exact mechanisms are not currently understood, not bad given we didn’t uncover natural selection until the mid/late 1800s.
Yet we still have a plethora of data supporting that these changes do occur in a natural way, and in a very random way, with divergent and convergent evolution wildly rampant in the various kingdoms.
No single science is completely understood flash, they all have mysteries waiting to be discovered. I’d be a piss poor scientist if I didn’t freely admit that my own knowledge of of my chosen field is quite limited. Honestly, the more I learn, the less I feel I know.
PS: Science answers “how”, religion/philosophy answer “why”. Get your nasty little faith out of my science and I won’t use my science to calculate the number of prayers that go unanswered each day.
@Flash, I NEVER claimed to support “evolution.”
What I asked was how in the fuck do you replicate thousands of years of existence, birth, rebirth, death, in a fucking lab?
You go off on a cut and paste tangent about some biblical stuff, which I didn’t read.
This is what I know, penguins that have existed in Antarctica have fundamental differences from penguins that exist in Africa. Frogs in Madagascar are differently adapted to their environments than frogs in the ponds out back.
Why you yanking my chain man? @bb is a hypocritical, judgmental, uneducated, and non-critical-thinking asswipe that begs to be smacked down with logic.
Then you arrive on the scene reminding me he isn’t the only one lurking around here.
Peace
TE, the very fact you assumed the C&P to be biblical told me you didn’t read it..but yet you judge…because science. Maybe If you didn’t have a chain dragging , it would get yanked.
When I see the logic you claim to spew, I’ll be glad to acknowledge it…but, on this bb right…until evolution is proven theory it should not taught in any public school as such.If you want to pay for you kids to assume something based on pure conjecture, sure that’s your business, put them in a private school…but as for me, I don’t want my tax money to go for funding bullshit to be taught in school as fact….It’s not even and or biblical teachings.Evolution theory cannot stand alone on it’s own merits regardless.
TPC, I seen the “plethora” of evidence supposedly backing up evolution and all the fer’ shure’ missing links that were until they after close examination were not. When the fossil is found that shows the evidence of actually metamorphosis of one creature into another I’ll be convinced.
My ” nasty” little faith has nothing to do with the theory of evolution being chock full of so many holes, your sophistry notwithstanding.
Again Flash, I didn’t SUPPORT evolution, I didn’t say a word about teaching it in schools.
What I continue to ask is just HOW THE HELL can you prove something in a lab that takes THOUSANDS of years to happen?
It CANNOT ever be proved to your specifications. EVER.
Neither can creationism.
Science is nothing but currently affirmed guesses. They change constantly. What is taught today, believed today, affirmed today, is constantly found to be incorrect or incomplete tomorrow.
So should NO scientific theories be taught?
YOU are the one insisting on making it a religious argument.
I was just pointing out that we cannot reproduce thousands of years in a petri dish without it taking thousands of years.
Again, your want to make everything about your book and your god overrides any opinions that do not support your own.
My god laughs at this, as he knows it is entirely possible – and highly probable – that both sides are both right.
Your god wants me to burn in hell for daring to use the brain he created for me.
Peace Flash, I’m done arguing with idiots for today.
I defer to the great and profound wisdom of Samuel Clemens
“What is Man? Man is a noisome bacillus whom Our Heavenly Father created because he was disappointed in the monkey.”
― Mark Twain
[img
[/img]
[img
[/img]
TE, in answer to your query , the lab of empirical evidence has already been established.No recorded history in the last three thousand years has noted ever a bug scarfing fish taking to the trees in search of nuts..your lab results are in…happy now?
BTW, my feelings on faith have nada to do with negating any premedical decadence supporting evolution, because none exist. and until a holy heaven dwelling spirit fish inspires a troupe of cave hanging spider monkeys to pen a handbooks of holy living aimed at all of cognitive aware creatures, even the sweet singing flying slug , I’ll hold off on any opinions on that.
..peace to you as well.
“If there is no GOD then no judgment.”
Allow me to introduce … ME! I am plenty judgmental.
@flash – “No recorded history in the last three thousand years has noted ever a bug scarfing fish taking to the trees in search of nuts..your lab results are in…happy now?”
I always love when this argument gets trotted out. It lets me know its time to exit stage left as its clear the other party just wants a fight and doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how evolution functions.
PS: Lungfish walk over land with oddly shaped fins and the pacu fish eat nuts. Both opportunistically eat insects as needed.
There are also several species of fish that crawl up trees and can modify their respiratory systems to survive outside of water for prolonged periods of time.
So….in ten seconds worth of thinking I found fish that can survive on land, can climb trees, eat nuts(and also insects), and survive outside of water for prolonged periods of time. What a sad attempt at a strawman.
I think what pisses guys like you off so much is that these changes happen over the course of lifetimes plural, not lifetime singular. You won’t see that “single change” because thats not how it works, not at all.
Seriously man, I can’t believe you don’t even try to understand something you so vehemently oppose. I mean, I know these concepts aren’t that easy, but its not like I’m trying to teach you quantum mechanics or neural surgery here.
PC ,TE ,I mock you with contempt. Pirate Jo, let’s. have some kids to improve the evolutionary chain.
Ok pissy, I concede..It’s just me and a chemist that happens to be the one of the worlds foremost authority’s on synthetic molecules that aren’t convinced by root clambering fish or fish forced to flap short distances across the mud flat to the next drainage ditch as proof of evolution… but a world famous scientoady, you probably know best.
Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/zacktwo.html
Professor Richard Smalley’s
Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.
Because science, that’s effing why!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/sponsors-of-pentagons-alarm-raising-climate-study-/
Retired officers poised to profit after Pentagon’s alarmist climate change report
Urgent Obama call can funnel funds to projects
Retired military officers deeply involved in the climate change movement — and some in companies positioned to profit from it — spearheaded an alarmist global warming report this month that calls on the Defense Department to ramp up spending on what it calls a man-made problem.
The report, which the Obama administration immediately hailed as a call to action, was issued not by a private advocacy group but by a Pentagon-financed think tank that trumpets “absolute objectivity.” The research was funded by a climate change group that is also one of the think tank’s main customers.
The May 13 report came from the military advisory board within CNA Corp., a nonprofit based in Alexandria, Virginia, that includes the Center for Naval Analyses, a Navy-financed group that also gets contracts from other Pentagon units. CNA also operates the Institute for Public Research.
“Evolution has just been dealt its death blow.” ———– flash
“God is dead” ——— Marx, and others
Both statements are utterly foolish.
flash, what if God decided to use evolution as part of his creation process? Or, is your God too small for that?
Stuck, the fact that I believe in creation should be enough parlay my belief in intelligent design.It’s the lighting striking the primordial ooze bullshit that I can’t accept…and neither can a lot my scientifically astute men than I. Your welcome to believe WETFYW , but please don’t presume the authority to tell me what to…
FWIW, these words are not mine but : Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)
2. Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)
The second name on my list should be even more embarrassing for you, Zack. I’m referring to Professor Richard Smalley (1943-2005), winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Now I noticed, Zack, that right at the top of your list of Nobel Laureates is the name of Sir Harold Kroto, who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Richard Smalley. So now I ask: which Nobel Prize winner are we supposed to believe, Kroto or Smalley?
(a) Evidence that Professor Richard Smalley was opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution
You want proof that Professor Richard Smalley was an opponent of evolution? Be my guest. First, in an address that Dr. Richard Smalley gave at the Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation (October 3, 2004) Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin versus the Bible’s “Genesis”; then he pointed out:
The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “Genesis” was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.
But wait, there’s more! Smalley also invoked cosmic fine-tuning as a scientific argument for God’s existence, and stated publicly that he had been persuaded on strictly scientific grounds that evolution was impossible.
(b) Dr. Smalley on cosmic fine-tuning
In a letter sent to the Hope College Alumni Banquet where he was awarded a Distinguished Alumni Award in May 2005, Dr. Richard Smalley wrote:
Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ.
Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
(c) Dr. Smalley’s late-life scientific conversion to Old Earth Creationism
Towards the end of his life, Dr. Richard Smalley became an Old Earth creationist, after reading the books “Origins of Life” and “Who Was Adam?”, written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows:
Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death. (Emphasis mine – VJT.)
“Puts the evolutionary model to death”?! These are pretty strong words for a Nobel scientist, Zack. So I hope you can understand that when I posed the question above, “Which Nobel Prize winner are we supposed to believe, Kroto or Smalley?”, I wasn’t being flippant. If a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry thinks it is now clear that evolution could not have occurred, then I think that high school students in Louisiana are entitled to hear why. Wouldn’t you agree?
Now, I’m sure that alert readers who checked out the last link will have noticed that at the time when Professor Smalley made those remarks in 2005, Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fuz Rana (who are Old Earth creationists) had spoken out against the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools – not because it was too supernaturalistic, but because it wasn’t sufficiently scientific. In particular, they claimed that ID didn’t make any testable, falsifiable predictions, whereas their Old Earth creationist model made lots of predictions. Well, I’m happy to say that this concern has been addressed. Signature in the Cell, by the best-selling book by Intelligent Design proponent Dr. Stephen Meyer, contains an entire appendix (18 pages) of scientific predictions made by the theory of Intelligent Design. There’s a list of a dozen detailed predictions at the end of the chapter.
What’s more, Professor Richard Smalley was on good terms with leading Intelligent Design proponent Professor William Dembski. Shortly before his death, they even had lunch together. Professor Dembski reported on their meeting in a brief obituary he wrote for Dr. Smalley:
Rick Smalley, a Nobel laureate in chemistry at Rice University, died earlier this week. You can read about his scientific contributions and passing here. I had the privilege of having lunch with Rick this summer. The meeting was arranged by his pastor at Houston’s Second Baptist Church, my friend Ben Young. Rick had in the previous year become a Christian as well as a member of Second Baptist Church, and begun to express his doubts about Darwinism publicly (see here and here). I reported on my lunch meeting with Rick here, though to spare him harrassment I did not mention him by name. Rick’s prediction at the end of his life was that ID would be mainstreamed in five years and that evolution in its conventional materialistic sense would be dead within ten. It will be interesting to see if his predictions are borne out.
Did you notice that, Zack? Professor Smalley was a Nobel laureate in chemistry at Rice University. Your university. It might be worth checking out how he came to espouse a view diametrically opposed to Darwinism.
Well, what did Dr. Smalley say to Professor Dembski over lunch? Here’s a report by Dembski:
I had an extended meeting today with two of the nation’s top scientists, one of them a Nobel laureate. The Nobel laureate spoke of evolution as “bankrupt” and thought ID would be mainstreamed in five years. The other scientist was not as optimistic about this timetable, but agreed with his colleague’s assessment of evolution. He also noted that with the Internet it wasn’t possible for professors to command the deference of students as in times past. For instance, whereas in the past he was able to throw together problems sets simply by cribbing from textbooks, today he finds that students need merely consult the Internet to find perfect solutions to such problems. Professors are therefore no longer the sole repository of answers for students. Accordingly, the scientific priesthood is undergoing a shake-up. This is all to the good of ID, which thrives as the subversive instrument par excellence for exposing priestcraft dressed in a scientific lab coat.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/zacktwo.html
BTW, stuck , how could God possible be dead if he never existed?
[img
[/img]
Stucky , your a loathsome Fuck who knows nothing about evolutionary theory and once again you are calling GOD a liar. GOD says he created everything not evolution. Evolution goes back to the first Babylonian empire called Sumter. There’s where most of this satanic shit got started.Charles Darwin discovered nothing.Evolution in one form or another had been around for Six thousand years.All the first false religions start with evolution. Satan was the first evolutionist.Remember anything you say that doesn’t square with the biblical account is a lie.You got a bad habit of calling GOD a liar.Bad boy,Bad boy.
” ….. but please don’t presume the authority to tell me what to… ” ——– flash
What the hell are you talking about? I don’t presume any authority over you, or anyone else, ever. You are way to emotional over the evolution vs creation debate.
.
“…the fact that I believe in creation should be enough parlay my belief in intelligent design.” —flash
Not really. The Catholic Church accepts BOTH creation AND evolution. And even some fundy Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, accept the role of evolution in the design process.
And for the last fucking time, I am NOT an atheist.
“GOD says he created everything” ———– bb, aka Village Idiot
1. God created EVERYTHING.
2. Evolution is a PART OF “everything”.
3. Therefore, God created evolution.
Thanks for making my point crystal clear.
The disagreement between those who believe in God and those who profess to be atheists appears to me to be more about dogma than anything substantial. Both agree on the fundamental act of creation and neither deny the evidence of its existence as seen in the natural world around us. The division comes when we chose which catalyst we believe in.
It reminds me of the old joke where the guy offers a woman a million dollars for a night of passion and she accepts. He then lowers his offer to $50 and she asks him “What kind of woman do you think I am?” and he responds, “That’s been established, now we’re just haggling over the price.
Creation happened, life exists and we are capable of cogitating the cause and purpose, but no one denies the observable reality.
Kind of agree with Stucky,
Why is evolution considered at odds with creationism?
Stucky, GOD created the material world but not an Ideology that’s denied his existence.Man created evolution and it is another false religion that people use to justify their own depravity.
Farmer , you can’t have it both ways knucklehead. Either GOD created the material world. or he didn’t. There’s no in between , no middle ground , no Gray area and no extra credit.If you say evolution is part.of God’s creation then you to are calling GOD a liar because evolution is a lie.
Under fire , because evolutionary ideology denies the existence of GOD.At least in the west.You .people cannot be this stupid. Think .It’s why GOD gave you a brain.
bb-
I stand in awe of your personal understanding of God and his creation, I only see through a glass darkly.
To reiterate my point; Believers and atheists alike agree on the fact that creation exists. Both agree that there is an agency behind that creation. Both have names for it (God, Big Bang). Both agree that life itself exists where once there was nothing.
Have I missed anything else?
I work in the natural world, every day of my life. I use natural selection the way a carpenter uses a hammer. I would hazard a guess that most atheists have confused natural selection with evolution in the same way that most religious people confuse a belief in God with the acceptance of church dogma. Both groups rely on a belief in something that is neither demonstrable, nor knowable (at present).
That there was a creation is obvious to all, who or what was the creator is the great mystery of the ages, but it must exist because life is the evidence.
Carry on.
God created evolution. God’s power drives evolution, the ordering of molecules in the face of entropy. Then God created bb, and everything blew up in his face.
What happened to bb
[img
[/img]
bb I think it’s you that doesn’t get it. How does the theory of evolution deny that God created Life?
More likely is that
1. Religion came along
2. Some non religious types than sought to discredit religion, hanging their hat on the notion that if it can be observed or explained scientifically, than God didn’t do it. That is, God only works by what we consider magic.
3. Religious types, still being not to far removed from the amebo and infuriated at that attack on their beliefs, went barging into that nonsense argument and so denied the existence of evolution.
I see no conflict between creation and evolution. As for myself, I believe that there is an unseen spiritual dimension, I believe strongly in God and that a very strong and close being came to the earth (Christ), and that there are opposing spirits.
Farmer , AWD ,…You say evolution or natural selection helps GOD.You don’t seem to understand that both are lies. Why would GOD choose a godless ideology to explain creation?I stand in awe of your inability to see your own blindness. AWD ,the only reason you say you believe in evolution. is to get alone with others in your profession.You are scared of what others doctors will think of you.You both fear man.Carry on.
Under fire , I am glad your are not an atheist but the GOD you worship is the GOD.of your imagination.
.
“…the fact that I believe in creation should be enough parlay my belief in intelligent design.” —flash
Not really. The Catholic Church accepts BOTH creation AND evolution. And even some fundy Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, accept the role of evolution in the design process. Stucky
What part of “intelligent design” do you not understand?
and the Lord did sayeth:
Better to be a cockroach scurrying in a Ghetto in Camden than bb on a blog
[img
[/img]
bb,
I am normally the soul of probity, but clearly that approach doesn’t work with everyone. I never wrote, nor have I ever said “evolution and natural selection helps GOD.” Please don’t put words in my mouth. What I said was that natural selection exists because I use it as a tool in my life the way mathematicians use numbers, carpenters hammers, surgeons scalpels. It is an observable reality. It is factual and it is undeniable. I further stated that I believe (I don’t know) that most atheists have confused the theory of evolution with the reality of natural selection and based on what most of them either say or write, that belief is almost entirely built upon FAITH, not scientific method. If you read that a scientist did an experiment and then support the conclusions without repeating the experiment yourself you are operating in the realm of faith, not proof. For example I know that water freezes at 32 degrees because I have observed this fact for myself often enough to know that this is a fact. Anything I would have to say about splitting atoms or space flight would be fact free because I cannot replicate these types of phenomenon so I eschew commentary. I like to discuss things I have absolute knowledge of or listen to others who do.
You ask why God would choose a “godless ideology” and this is an imponderable because neither you, not I knows the mind of God. The fact that natural selection exists as well as pain, death, crime, sin, etc. does not mean that there is no God, only that we haven’t the intellectual depth, nor the factual certainty of the purpose of those things.
Hah, this thread is still going? Guys, you are barking up the wrong tree. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
As for evolution, if it makes people feel better, I normally teach my religious students not to view evolution as heresy, but rather as the tool that their god used to shape the natural world.
Much like how plate tectonics and gravity shaped the planet itself, evolution has led us to where we are today.
Some of the finest minds in science support a belief in a creator and as the far as the existence of God and intelligent design goes, in the realm of science, myself , not having any training in such fields, I’ll defer to their expertise.
List of Christian thinkers in science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
One thing should be made clear, no man regardless his rhetoric stating otherwise is a representative of God on earth. It is God that is the representative of all humanity, and as the Representative of mankind , God granted all human the gift of free will.
God is not responsible for the re-gifting of this great gift to any secular cause…e.g . a government instituted by men.The ruin wrought by government at the behest of mankind is all mankind own doing and cannot be laid at the feet of God. And until all humanity understands they, in the eyes of God are responsible for their own action , they’ll continue to rape , rob and murder in the name of government.Make no mistake about it.This nefarious conduct cannot be attributed to God , regress the whether they call themselves a Christian ,nation or not.
We get what we ask for and receive what we deserve.
1 Samuel 8 (New International Version)
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+8
Here is something interesting.
The guys on Sirius Progress radio have declared that there will be no discussion of AGW or evolution as all that “science” is settled.
The radio hosts will not even take a call from anybody that wishes to discuss this “science”! (So who has the closed minds NOW?)
Anybody that disagrees with that will be remanded to the nearest re-education camp apparently, or shot preferably from the liberal progressive point of view as that means overall less carbon emitted.
@Stucky, bb: Guys, guys, our science at this point is inadequate to analyze the miracle of Life, its origin and continuously changing forms of it. The real question, in my mind, is why does Life happen at all? Why aren’t we just formless goo sitting on rocks just whizzing around the universe? That would certainly be more tidy! Why does molecules bumping against each other always result in some structured life form? If it is a totally random process, organized structures were NEVER occur, I think somebody did the math on that once.
As a scientist, as a physician, I remain in total awe at the complexity of the one life form I have the most training in- human beings. The more I learn, and we are at the point of sorting out the most minute of sub-cellular processes, the more I am convinced of a Creator or Intelligent Design. Perhaps I can’t think in geologic time, perhaps my (limited) intellect can’t fathom the incredibly elegant scientific processes behind all this, I dunno.
Mebbe it’s all just Quantum and “God” is the ultimate manipulator of it.
Here’s something I learned from an outside source (Thanks, llpoh) and I have observed it enough times for myself to consider it factual:
You are wasting your time engaging bb in a conversation of any kind. Further, when you try to get him to see any point other than his own, it’s futile. In fact, llpoh, called me “a fool.”
Since then, I have taken llpoh’s words to heart, and ignore bb on all posts. Thus, I repeat llpoh’s words of wisdom:
“You are all fools to enter into discussion with bb.”
Farmer, can’t know the mind of GOD .That’s rubbish. That’s why GOD gave us the BIBLE. To know something about the mind or Spirit of GOD.Read the biblical account. Natural selection is more rubbish. Like time + random chance +unlimited mutations +more time =creation. Farmer you are delusional.Good grief.