The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Nostalgic for Creationism—It Was Nicer Than Cultural Marxism.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I got a little blast from the past reading Razib Khan’s May 13th piece at National Review: Conservatives Shouldn’t Fear Evolutionary Theory.

Just some background on Razib. I have known him for more than twenty years, since we were both on Steve Sailer’ s original Human BioDiversity discussion group. Razib is a geneticist, most particularly a population geneticist, with a wonderfully comprehensive knowledge of how the various peoples of the world differ from each other and how they got to be where they are.

Razib runs the Gene Expression blog at gnxp.com. His May 11th post there on the Uighurs is pretty representative of his interests: history, religion, and population genetics.

Just a word of warning: If you feel you want to comment at that blog, let me tell you that Razib is a serious rival to Greg Cochran for the world championship of Not Suffering Fools Gladly. If you want to challenge him, just make quite sure you know what you’re talking about.

Well, on Tuesday Razib published this piece at National Review. It’s is a polite and non-vituperative but very eloquent defense of the scientific approach in general, and of modern evolutionary biology in particular. Sample quote: “Nature is not wish fulfilment; reality is not constructed by social ideologies.”

As I started by saying, this struck me as a blast from the past; and it stirred a peculiar kind of nostalgia in me. Let me try to explain that.

When I first got involved in writing for conservative outlets in the U.S.A. twenty-some years ago, Creationism—which had been rebranded in the 1990s as “Intelligent Design“—was the default position among my colleagues. Bill Buckley, for example, was a Creationist; Pat Buchanan I think still is one; Ann Coulter likewise, last time I checked.

I’ve been a science geek from childhood, and I spoke up for science and against Creationism in those conservative outlets I was writing for, to the displeasure of some of my colleagues. National Review, to its credit, let me speak my mind freely, to the displeasure of some of their readers.

One anti-Creationism piece I published in their pages, in February 2005, got the attention of the Discovery Institute, which is a Creationist think tank in Seattle. They sent a whole squad of people over to New York to try to get the magazine back on the Creationist rails, including some of their big guns: Bruce Chapman, George Gilder, Michael Behe.

We—that is, me and a couple of National Review editors—met with them in the library. The exchanges were cordial, but of course nobody’s mind was changed.

(Witness my former National Review colleague David Klinghoffer, who has just written on the Discovery Institute’s website that “in general, blackballing and guilt by association are unfair, and they are out of control in our culture at the moment. I would much rather err on the side of tolerance and forgiveness” —but then proceeds to blackball/ guilt by association Razib because he has been “canoodling with the racist Alt-Right” and his work has appeared in “vile publications like The Unz Review and Taki’s Magazine.” David goes on:

Khan is probably a perfectly decent guy. In fact, several leading figures at alt-right journals — Taki Theodoracopulos, Peter Brimelow, and the aforementioned Steve Sailer — were writers whose work I enjoyed editing at National Review in the 1990s. That was before they took off in these unfortunate directions, parting ways with mainstream conservatives. They were all very talented and pleasant to deal with.

Razib Khan: A Geneticist and the Alt-Right, by David Klinghoffer, Evolution News, May 16, 2019

That’s nice of you, David! So Creationism seems to be allying with Race Denial—with which it indeed has much in common).

Creationism is still around, but it’s faded as an issue among legacy conservatives—what we at VDARE.com call “Conservatism, Inc.”—and it’s not an issue at all on the Dissident Right, far as I am aware. The Dissident Right is science-friendly. Why wouldn’t it be? Everything science turns up reinforces our view of human nature.

What caused Creationism to lose market share? Well, it suffered two setbacks, one sudden and one gradual.

The sudden setback was the Kitzmiller decision of later that year, 2005. A Pennsylvania school board had mandated the teaching of Creationism; some parents sued, and won their case. The Creationists did not come well out of Kitzmiller. The courtroom exchanges shone an unflattering light on their dishonesty and double-talk.

The gradual setback was the rapid advances in genetics that were getting airborne about the same time, as described by Razib in his piece. In the last fifteen years we have gotten a much better grip on the actual chemical and biological processes underlying evolutionary change.

Science has greatly improved our understanding. None of the new things we have learned supports Creationism; none of them has overthrown orthodox biology, as Creationists of the 1990s were promising was about to happen any day.

Meanwhile, as real science has advanced, Creationism has stood still, adding nothing to the stock of human knowledge. The science versusCreationism match-up has turned out to be no contest.

So Razib’s recent article looked a bit quaint.

Having been on the side of science all along, believing that truth is better than falsehood, I’m glad that Creationism has declined. At the same time, though, I can’t help feeling some nostalgia for it.

Creationism was ignorant and unscientific, but it was harmless. It was in fact a remnant of the old, weird America for which people of my generation feel a romantic affection.

Creationism was very American. I suppose we had Creationists in England fifty years ago, but they made no noise; nobody paid them any attention. It was one of those quirky American things, like high school proms or affixing “Jr.” to your name or eating peanut butter with jam.

ORDER IT NOW

If, as is probably the case, ignorant and unscientific attitudes are bound to be widespread in any society, better they should be of the harmless kind like Creationism, than that they should be of the persecuting, anti-human, totalitarian kind like the Cultural Marxist ideology now dominant in the West.

Creationism was nutty and wrong, but in a civilized way, a very Americanway. Now we have a new style of superstitious ignorance, a style that is not civilized at all, nor especially American: a style that is barbarous, violent, cosmopolitan, and crazed with power.

I was never going to be a Creationist. But now that Creationism is fading, I miss it.

My very strong preference is that youngsters in our schools and colleges be taught true facts about nature, and about human nature.

If that’s too much to ask, and we’re going to teach the kids hogwash, I’d rather it was the harmless, nutty American hogwash of Creationism than the evil, poisonous, equally anti-science nation-breaking hogwash of Cultural Marxism.

2010-12-24dl[1]John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him.) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT(also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

For years he’s been podcasting at Radio Derb, now available at VDARE.com for no charge. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Creationism, Political Correctness 
Hide 290 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Shouldn’t this be “creationisms”? Where does “turtles all the way down” find a place at the table?

    • Replies: @anon
  2. Russell s says:

    Have you read Darwin devolves? It Behe’s latest. He makes a compelling case that evolution cannot explain any molecular machine in micro biology. With real science. I am sure as your previous meeting went, your confirmation bias will prevent you from reading it.

    • Agree: 95Theses
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Dutch Boy
  3. dearieme says:

    An interestingly reflective column, Mr D: thank you.

  4. This article suffers from one fatal defect. Nowhere does the author define what he means by the word “creationism”. So how do we, the readers, know whether to agree or disagree with him?

    There are two types of creationists; those who ascribe the creation of the Universe to a Divine Actor who takes a personal interest in each and every human being and those who perceive a certain intent in the works of Nature and posit the workings of a SupraIntelligence of some strange, ineffable as-yet-not-comprehended nature.

    The former believe that they share in some privileged relationship with the Big Daddy in the Sky. The later see no need and have no use for a personal Deity but they do have trouble accepting the notion that all this we see around us is the result of “randomness”, as so many Creationist-denialists assert.

    Is there an overarching plan or intent at work in Nature? It seems that way, but I don’t know for sure. And John Derbyshire doesn’t either. But I do know that the Richard Dawkins of the world are just plain intellectually dishonest in tilting at their straw men versions of Creationism and God.

  5. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    This comment suffers from one fatal defect — hairsplitting. Hairsplitting that is wielded to defend Creationism and then attack “Creationist-denialists.” Is it any wonder you’ve lost, and The Nones are as big as Catholicism and Protestantism?

    “It is all decided by chance.” Ecclesiastes 9:11

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @nopsi
  6. Well, this is about the 1st column with which I’ve disagreed with Mr. Derbyshire on the main point, in perhaps, forever. Nope, I don’t think the world was created 4019 years ago, or what-have-you. (Turtles don’t live that long … that’s one problem… not even Tortoises or Tortugas could …)

    The 1st error here I see is the statement that the Creationists have simply morphed into the proponents of Intelligent Design. It wasn’t just a change in nomenclature or a new paint scheme. No, that’d be like saying the alt-righters and Dissident-Right like Mr. D here have just change their appellation from “Conservative” previously. Instead, they have learned what’s wrong with their previous view and changed views to match reality.

    In the same way, I doubt there are 1/10 of 1 % of Americans who believe the world is 4,000 years old. The science put the lie on those beliefs long ago. Intelligent Design is not just a fall-back position. The theory is based on the never-proven timeline/numbers of the theory of evolution. (It’s been the subject of a few (possibly-recycled) Fred Reed column that I’ve enjoyed the most.) It sounds like an attempt to quantitatively dis-prove I.D. would be right up this Razib Khan’s alley, in fact. It would take mathematical modeling of mutation probabilities, lots of understanding of cell biology, and more applied science – very interesting stuff, IMO.

    I will say more about your nostalgia for the creationists of the day, as I do agree with you on that part, but gotta go! More later.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @anon
  7. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Russell s

    Your confirmation bias prevents you from reading anything else that easily demonstrates how evolution can explain any molecular machine in micro biology within you and other animals.Oh well, you’ll be just as dead as a dead squirrel flat out on the freeway and drying in the sun soon, and go to the same place.

    “Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both.” Ecclesiastes 3:19

    • Replies: @Rich
  8. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    He’s speaking of the creationism necessary to keep pews at the Magic Show filled on Sunday. While many try, it’s extremely ridiculous to interpret an evolutionary metaphor of Adam & Eve alongside the quite literal resurrected Christ within the same Biblical passage. (See Luke 3:23-28, Romans 5:19, I Corinthians 15:22, also 1 Timothy 2:14)

  9. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    “(It’s been the subject of a few (possibly-recycled) Fred Reed column that I’ve enjoyed the most.)”

    Verbal organisms adapting to deadline pressure.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  10. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Wrong. Want to try litigating that again?

    U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

    Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/judgment-day-intelligent-design-on-trial

  11. Evolution is still plagued by a lack of conclusive evidence as to what actually sparked life into being, so belief in a higher power, e.g. Creationism and Intelligent Design, is akin to Pascal’s Wager and not a wholly unreasonable position to at least allow for.

  12. @anon

    “It is all decided by chance”

    and just how did order arise out of “chance”?

    • Replies: @anon
  13. Conservatives are often gritty realists when it comes to admitting the prevalence of human foibles and the random acts of inexplicable violence that complex, interwoven human weaknesses lead to.

    Liberals—and progressives even more—are rock-solid believers in the intellectual authority of science. They don’t believe a deity used intelligent design to create the labyrinthian complexity of human life.

    But progressives do believe in logically ordered, human-designed utopias, where flawed humans can be made to interact in ways that advance collective goals via social engineering.

    Conservative Creationists might be thinking less about the specifics of science and more about the behavior spawned by thinking that, “If there’s no God, then everything is permitted.”

  14. @anon

    “writing in his decision that intelligent design “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

    And he is an authority because of what or whom? Who cares what some judge preaches from his pulpit? Obviously he is dealing with the issue on a political basis, not a strictly scientific one.

    Again, you people who make heroes of yourself as creationist-deniers keep shoehorning Intelligent Design into something it’s not. I’m a creationist-denier myself but nevertheless, like most intelligent people, perceive intelligence at work in the Universe.

    The difference between you and I is that I’m humble and honest enough to admit that I don’t understand everything going on around me and I’m intelligent enough to realize that none of the rest of you do either. I’m perfectly content with ambiguity and doubt and have faith that tomorrow we shall know more than we do today, though I won’t be here to enjoy that new knowledge. So it goes.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @anon
    , @peterAUS
  15. Daruma says: • Website

    “When hearing arguments pro or con regarding evolution, the air usually becomes filled with the guts of straw men from both sides…”

    Thus speaks Daruma:
    http://hirocker.com/evolution/evolution.html

    • Replies: @anon
  16. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    ” .. from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

    I don’t care much one way or the other about this issue, which like abortion seems to be recycled whenever the American people need to be redivided to stay conquered.

    But it can be amusing and revealing to see anti-religious zealots cite to their own higher authority, just a fellow supreme being wearing a robe and swinging a gavel atop a secular altar.

    Progressives(tm) tend Puritan, and vice versa.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @peterAUS
  17. @ThreeCranes

    In context with the rest of his article, I’d say the former. He makes reference to old nutty America, which may or may not imply the Christian south/midwest, but that’s what I took away from it.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  18. Rich says:
    @anon

    Your confirmation bias prevents you from reading anything else that easily demonstrates how evolution cannot explain biogenesis, symbiosis or engineering. But I don’t want to argue with you, you followers of evolution are the most zealous religionists I’ve ever come across. and to doubt any of your sacred doctrines is akin to patricide in your eyes. Go on with your harmless little “Evolution Religion”, as long as you don’t go blowing things up or flying planes into buildings, it’s okay.

    • Replies: @anon
  19. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Lord Randomfactor’s nickname Chance—while commonly associated with evolution—is an inaccurate choice of words.

    Darwinism has long being interpreted as a view of nature as based upon “chance.” Ideologues have pounced on this to bolster their own extra-scientific philosophies… It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn’t work. [Dawkins 1996: 67]

    Evolution and Chance
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

    And to clarify Lord Randomfactor:

    “In ordinary English, a random event is one without order, predicatability or pattern. The word connotes disaggregation, falling apart, formless anarchy, and fear. Yet, ironically, the scientific sense of random conveys a precisely opposite set of associations. A phenomenon governed by chance yields maximal simplicity, order and predictability–at least in the long run. … Thus, if you wish to understand patterns of long historical sequences, pray for randomness.” Gould [1993: 396f]

    [ibid]

    If you wish to understand, pray thusly, “Our Father, who art in He-even, hallowed be thy Randomness…”

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @polaco
  20. Realist says:

    Creationism was ignorant and unscientific, but it was harmless.

    Indoctrinating young people with religious dogma and lies about science is not harmless.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  21. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Natural Selection is not “anti-religion.” If your religion is a revolt against Nature—which Christianity arguably is—that’s your particular religion’s problem, not a problem of religion in general.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  22. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    The 4th law of Thermodynamics, a.k.a. Maximum Power Principle (Lotka, 1922; Odum, 1994) explains biogenesis well enough. Or even the 2nd law of physics, as this fellow asserts:

    “The origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

    A New Physics Theory of Life: Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.
    http://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

    > your sacred doctrines is akin to patricide

    Huh? Here’s your original Jewish-Antifa agent railing against the White Roman Patriarchy: “Call no man your Patron.” -Jewsus

    > as long as you don’t go blowing things up or flying planes into buildings

    Yeah, as long as you don’t go corn-holing altar-boys or imprisoning people for daring to say the earth moves around the sun. Two can play that sort of game as long as you want, Rich. Your turn.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    , @Rich
  23. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daruma

    Then let’s clear the air with an online index of scientific journal articles that address every creationist/ID argument, divided into the following sections:

    • CA: Philosophy and Theology
    • CB: Biology
    • CC: Paleontology
    • CD: Geology
    • CE: Astronomy and Cosmology
    • CF: Physics and Mathematics
    • G: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution
    • CH: Biblical Creationism
    • CI: Intelligent Design
    • CJ: Other Creationism

    An Index to Creationist Claims
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

    Ready, set…

  24. I spoke up for science and against Creationism in those conservative outlets I was writing for, to the displeasure of some of my colleagues. National Review, to its credit, let me speak my mind freely, to the displeasure of some of their readers.

    Too bad NR wasn’t so tolerant on a more pressing subject like black crime.

    Creationism seems to be allying with Race Denial—with which it indeed has much in common.

    Intelligent-Designers believe in what they call ‘micro-evolution’, which would mean evolution within existing species, but not ‘macro-evolution’, which would mean evolution from one species into another. Cultural Marxists, on the other hand, believe in macro-evolution, but not in micro-evolution at the level of the subspecies (i.e., race). So basically, CM is the mirror-image of ID. As a wise man once said, ‘The opposite of a bad idea is usually another bad idea.’

    Creationism was nutty and wrong, but in a civilized way, a very Americanway. Now we have a new style of superstitious ignorance, a style that is not civilized at all …

    Could not agree more. Creationism was merely a sin against science; Cultural Marxism is a sin against every academic discipline and human freedom, too.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Dutch Boy
  25. @anon

    There are no Gods but US Judge John E. Jones, III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Court Reporter Cla’midia Jefferson is His Prophet.

    • Replies: @anon
  26. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Intelligent Design is just another long-winded euphemism for Creationism.

    > I’m perfectly content with ambiguity and doubt

    Then why do you demand an intelligent designer, like most un-intelligent people? Why not actually be perfectly content with ambiguity and doubt like the smart guys?

    “We love not knowing.” -Richard Feynman

  27. @Realist

    Nope, and that was what my 2nd reply to Mr. Derbyshire’s column here was going to be about. There were lots of very religious people in America back in the day, especially in the Midwest and Deep South, who wanted their kids to be taught Creationalism in the schools. The thing is, this was in THEIR schools, get it? What they resented, which is just another problem with having government schools, is having their kids get taught things they didn’t believe in.

    It ain’t like they wanted their kids to get taught algebra ass-backwards, you know with asymptotes on parabolas and not on hyperbolas and that sort of crap. Their refusal to believe the science was frustrating to many, but they had every right to determine what would be taught in THEIR schools. Now, there is the huge Dept. of Education, and for the 2nd time this very morning I say: F__k you very much, Jimmy Carter, for that one.

    BTW, Realist, don’t complain then, when the teachers start teaching your kids that men can be women, and women can be men, depending on how they feel that day, or homosexuality is just natural .. etc, etc. That’s what the GOVERNMENT wants your children to be taught – SO LET IT BE WRITTEN SO, LET IT BE DONE.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Realist
  28. That reply to Realist didn’t really capture what I wanted to say. Yes, Mr. Derbyshire, I don’t believe the Creationalists of olde America felt the need to force the whole country to adopt their beliefs. Sure, there were plenty of evangelists, but they did not force you to attend their meetings. Of course, they’ve always been very nice and generous in their way of trying to get more believers, which is basically being taken advantage of these days by a whole lot of home-cooking-hungry Chinese graduate students (whose in-laws haven’t finagled that 6-month tourist visa out of the Immigration Service yet).

    What a difference that is from our ctrl-left crowd here at the Peak of Stupidity! They want to force all this on everyone, and if you even just don’t use the right lingo around them, they’ll send you to some indoctrination class. Hell yeah, I miss the old Creationalists!

    • Replies: @anon
  29. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Behold the butthurt in bold! Why not all-caps while you’re at it? Anyway, here’s how we’ll play the game. (1) You make an intelligent design claim. (2) I go to the Talk Origins index for Intelligent Design claims and refute your claim. Note that CI001.2 already refutes your silly claim that ID isn’t creationism.

    Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CI

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  30. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Thing is, here in America, we have a cultural “hostility” to “every form of tyranny over the mind of man” being established by the scheming “clergy.” So much so that it got carved into stone on a monument in our Capital.

    “…had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the US. and as every sect believes it’s own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for it’s own: but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me…”

    Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800
    http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-32-02-0102

    Are you going to tell me next that there is no such thing as a wall of separation between church and state?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  31. @anon

    Yes, and then they go on to speak of how the “randomness” of e.g. a coin flip results in an orderly outcome.

    Balderdash!

    The orderliness in implicit in the fundamental dyad you began with. And so it is with all the pseudointelligently-designed theories put forth by proponents of “chance”, “randomness” etc. In every case, the order is built into either the structure of the primary components under consideration or the fundamental laws of statistics.

    Gould is a kid whose enlightened parents didn’t insist that he attend Mesivta and in his joy upon being released from a strict conventional education, proceeded to mischievously draw a mustache on every Mona Lisa in Western European thought.

    So, “God is a delusion.” How daring!

    “Randomness rules.” What intellectual courage!

    These Jewish intellectuals actually take these completely familiar nostrums for radical, profound, culture-altering truths.

    They are indeed “culture-altering. Jewish intellectuals of this stripe are setting the intellectual progress of the West back one hundred years.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  32. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > I don’t believe the Creationalists of olde America felt the need to force the whole country to adopt their beliefs.

    Let me refresh your memory with a blast from the past, specifically 1981:

    They are creationists – they call themselves ”scientific” creationists -and they are a growing power in the land, demanding that schools be forced to teach their views. State legislatures, mindful of votes, are beginning to succumb to the pressure.

    THE ‘THREAT’ OF CREATIONISM | JUNE 14, 1981
    https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/magazine/the-threat-of-creationism.html

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  33. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Richard Dawkins: “Darwinism is not a theory of random chance.”
    ThreeCranes: “proponents of ‘chance’”

    Nice straw man argument there.

    The “random chance” criticism is actually a straw man argument, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random (most notably mutation), the cornerstone of Charles Darwin’s theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god or a committee of gods must have intervened – a completely fallacious conclusion.

    Random chance | Rational Wiki
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Random_chance

    Natural selection is not random. Sure, the mutations are random, but if you don’t think mutations are random, then what do you propose causes them?

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @polaco
  34. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    You don’t see a judge decreeing that creationism is by definition (“thus”) religious and therefore to be banned from discourse as puritanical? A robed authority saying, in effect, that “thou shalt have no other god before me”?

    Real science is never settled.

    • Replies: @anon
  35. @anon

    You are a one-legged frog jumping from one lily pad to the next. Can’t you follow one line of reasoning?

    • Replies: @anon
  36. @anon

    A New Physics Theory of Life: Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.
    http://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

    You act is if you are science-oriented, yet you mistake an utterly speculative idea with no empirical support for science. It’s not science until he tries to falsify it.

    • Replies: @anon
  37. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    You don’t see today’s liberal humanists as Puritanical Creationists? That’s weird, even Slate and The Guardian recognize the Real Puritans.

    “[I]f you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you’re not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution.”

    Liberal Creationism | Slate, 2007
    https://slate.com/technology/2007/11/liberal-creationism.html

    Corroborating.

    “Liberal humanist values are merely a “hollowed-out version of a theistic myth.” [John Gray, Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science]

    What Scares the New Atheists | The Guardian, 2015
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists

    Puritanical Creationism is never settled.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  38. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    If you can’t understand that mutations are random but natural selection isn’t, you haven’t the ability to even land on a lily pad.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  39. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cloudbuster

    Before you jumped in, Rich was saying I couldn’t read something different. I gave him something different. Now we see how reading something different goes. Anyway, how do you falsify creationism/intelligent design, hmm? Go on, shoot your own foot.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
  40. Rich says:
    @anon

    This is why I don’t like to argue religion. Whether it’s Shiites, Puritans, Evolutionists, Anglicans, etc., you zealots get crazy and start making vicious statements against those who don’t share your sacredly held beliefs. Again, you can worship at whatever altar you like, but pretending your dearly held beliefs are any more factual than those held by an Evangelical or an Orthodox Jew, is somewhat comical from where I sit.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @95Theses
  41. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    > Jewish intellectuals

    Like this extremely popular Jewish Rabbi? Shall we play a game of thermonuclear NA(((J)))ALT?

    • Replies: @Ragno
  42. Lin says:

    Let me repost the followings:

    ALL YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT PROJECT ADAM

    Part 0:NATURE OF YAHWEH:

    Yahweh is the ‘Holy Father’ in heaven and Satan is the ‘Lord of the air’ (Ephesians 2:1-3).
    Yahweh is technically a superpowerful Extra-Terrestrial entity with ability we mortals can’t fathom. I’ve no intention to paint Yahweh as a green skin creature descended from a flying saucer. But sure ‘He’ is not of this world. If Yahweh is a biologist, then Earth is a petri dish and human are the micro-organism inside the petri dish sustained by the all powerful Yahweh. Praised be Yahweh
    Yahweh is omnipotent and can pick on multiple gender combos and its blasphemy to say He is ‘male’ only . He is technically a multi-gender/hermaphrodite extra-terrestrial entity with ability beyond human reach. (Early semite chieftains were so patriachal that they could only relate powerful entities to males)
    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-08-15/news/0808141093_1_god-yahweh-backward.

    Part 1: PROJECT ADAM –Something went wrong…

    When Yahweh created non-human higher animals or mammals, both male and female genders were created; but when it came to creating human, Yahweh had a different scheme.
    Genesis 1:26-27–And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So the original plan is making a hermaphrodite human species capable of self-fertilisation or same gender sex.

    Genesis 2:7–And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
    When Yahweh created human, Eve OBVIOUSLY was NOT part of the original plan.
    Now something went very wrong:
    Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
    Apparently Adam was looking for a sex mate/’helper’ among the animals(male or female).
    The Original Sin of Man had nothing to do with that piece of apple(from the tree of knowing good and evil). Obviously the Original Sin WAS bestial lust if not the actual act of bestiality. What your pastors told you about the original sin is WRONG !!

    Part 2: RESCUE PLAN B or the cloning of Eve

    Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
    Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
    ….
    Because the bio-engineering experiment of Yahweh the powerful extra-terrestrial went terribly wrong and Eve was created to salvage the project. The creation of Eve was likely delegated to Lucifer, an obvious female member of Yahweh’s pantheon. An alternative possibility was that Yahweh’s grand hermaphrodite plan(like Adam with bulging breasts capable of milking, phallus plus a posterior cavity doubled as both digestive exit and birth canal) was sabotaged by Lucifer the radical feminist.

    Project ADAM part C—JESUS the ‘Son’ of God

    Jesus, the Son of God and was obviously a result of cloning(or self-splitting from the entity of Yahweh)and growth inside the womb chamber of Virgin Mary without hetero interaction with the latter. There’s no confirmed heterosexual record of Jesus. Jesus was finally the ‘successful’ conclusion of Project ADAM

    Other evidences regarding the original intended biological attributes of man:
    — Males also have nipples, ie according to Yahweh’s original grand plan, males should also be able to breast feed new borns
    — Male prostate glands enable male to male sex (otherwise why can’t the prostate gland be placed away from the rectum ?)
    — Roman Catholic priests are forbidden to engage in heterosex but a significant % are homos. Those priests are servant of Yahweh and thus act the way Yahweh intends for them.

    Final Conclusion:

    1)Homos are true followers of Yahweh
    2)Heteros and (anti-trans)feminists are (unconscious) followers of Lucifer.
    (Lucifer is not an ugly male with horns as Christian preachers want you to believe; rather most likely a winged naked humanoid seductress belle )
    …………..

    • Replies: @anon
  43. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    • [2:18] Rich: as long as you don’t go blowing things up
    • [4:52] Rich: you zealots get crazy and start making vicious statements

    I’ve never observed a better example than yours of psychological projection.

    > from where I sit.

    I’ve never observed a better example than yours of philosophical relativism.

    Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.

    Relativism | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

    I guess relativism is the last refuge of creationism.

    • Replies: @Rich
  44. As I remember it, Pope John stated that evolution was not unbelievable and was compatible with the belief that God created the earth and also the evolutionary principles.

    As Thomas Aquinas theorized, the need for there to be an Uncaused Cause in order for the universe to exist as something cannot evolve from nothing. That, of course, includes the Big Bang materials which must have included all non-living, i.e. non-evolvable, presently existing material of the universe. From whence did/does it cometh/evolve?

    Interesting questions indeed Derb and you left them untouched much less unanswered.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  45. Anon[355] • Disclaimer says:

    Creationism has likely tracked downward concomitant with the decline in religious belief as a whole, Christianity in particular. The Christian religion discredited itself among the younger generation in multiple ways: (1) embracing the disastrous Iraq War, the consequences of which were partly assigned to that group (2) embracing untenable anti-science positions and fringe beliefs like Young Earth Creationism (3) embracing Reagan market-capitalism: as wages remained stagnant and living standards declined, Christians got some of the blame; this was doubly bad for Christians as this ideology taught them not to mind who controlled the means of information distribution, which has now led to the current situation where California liberals and the US government by proxy deplatform enemies of the regime (4) changing social values on gays and whatever else the media promoted (5) embracing apocalyptic end-times beliefs which never occurred. Van Impe, for example, was claiming the Rapture would occur sometime between 2007 and 2012 (nope); Hagee was claiming the European Union would take over the world and be the seat of power for the anti-Christ (nope) (6) general apathy; in a land of plenty, who needs a religion based around mortal suffering? (7) excessive political correctness on the sciences of genetics and evolution and attempting to link both to Adolf Hitler’s regime (see Conservapedia) in the process (8) obeisance towards the Left and its hateful narratives, thereby forcing people to chose between two worldviews which offer few fundamental differences (David Klinghoffer) and inevitably leading them to choose the more socially convenient one (9) And in the future, embracing Zionism; the youth aren’t going to want to be associated with a group that supports what Israel is doing to its racial minorities.

    In short, Christianity bet on the wrong horse each time and lost. Having a certain group in Hollywood continually attack “religion” while defending their own – or at least ignoring atrocities committed by co-ethnics – in Israel didn’t help, either – frog/scorpion. In any case, I favor revamping Christianity. Not turning it socially progressive or anything (one might rightly point out that the most socially liberal denominations are hemorrhaging members fastest) but one based partly around ethnic identity and shared cultural and historical identity, much like Judaism. Thus, Christianity would be a tacitly European, non-universalist, religion by default and even non-believers and the scientific elite – as is true in Israel – would be considered Christian. That way, we could have some real group cohesion. Unfortunately, I don’t expect obstinate conservative Christians to be open to the suggestion. Thus, we will remain atomized sheep among a pack of highly cohesive wolves.

    “Anyway, how do you falsify creationism/intelligent design, hmm?”

    Prove to me aliens didn’t build the pyramids. Sure, maybe you could point out tool marks or whatever, but how do I know aliens didn’t give the workers the tools? The point is that science doesn’t work that way. You devise a hypothesis to explain an observation, and then you test the hypothesis to see if the resulting data match your supposition. If it does, you’ve got a theory. Rinse, wash, repeat. The theory eventually becomes so strong that it’s elevated to a law or it is eventually disproved or maybe even subsumed into a deeper, more elegant theory. Does creationism/intelligent design do any of that or is it just a series of poor nitpicks by people who either don’t understand the science involved or blatantly lie about it, as was catalogued in the Kitzmiller case?

  46. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lin

    > winged naked humanoid seductress belle

    Doubter! It was a talking snake! And cute enough to show kids too!

    Source: The Talking Snake Theory: Creation Science & History For Christian Children

  47. @anon

    You mistake me for a partisan on this issue. The world is not that Black & White .

    If “something different” is simply more “Just So Stories” it seems the state of this debate hasn’t really changed much.

    I’d say you falsify ID by showing a laboratory example of biogenisis, or evolution of a complex cellular structure or new macro physical structure.

    As for falsifying England, his theory is going to have to get more concrete.

    “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

    Exactly how long does this take, and why? What sort of changes should we see, on what schedule? At what point can we consider the experiment a failure, as opposed to “it just needs more time?”

    If this is a natural result of fundamental physical properties, there ought to be a way to shorten the time component while still demonstrating the physical processes in operation.

    • Replies: @anon
  48. @anon

    You started out ridiculing creationists as weak-minded.

    I’ve never ventured an opinion about whether mutations are random or not. You keep arguing against some imaginary opponent in your brain. I’m not that guy. You’re suffering from auditory hallucinations; what we used to call “roof-brain chatter”.

    • Replies: @anon
  49. Anon[148] • Disclaimer says:

    “This article suffers from one fatal defect. Nowhere does the author define what he means by the word “creationism”. So how do we, the readers, know whether to agree or disagree with him?”

    The article was written by an educated man for a presumably educated audience. Therefore, it wasn’t necessary. Do science fiction writers feel the need to stop and explain the concept of gravity in the middle of the narrative?

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  50. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    > Cultural Marxism is a sin

    Or the fervent practice of the faithful.

    “Not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them…and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”

    Recognize the source? Karl Marx plagiarized his infamous maxim from two passages in this book. (I’m quoting just one of the passages.)

  51. @anon

    I’m not interesting in reading all this, #889. I’m not a zealot like you are. My point to the author is that I’ve never heard of proponents of evolutionary theory ever pointing out some nice mathematical models that at least come out with a time-line that makes sense. I’m not saying there won’t be. I just would like to see numbers some day on this. Granted, there’s a whole lot to it, and all the piece parts would have to be worked out very accurately before a trustworthy math model could be made.

    There’s lots of new science, involving decoding of the DNA sequences and all, that can say HOW things may have changed, and WHO slowly became WHO (or for animals, WHAT became WHAT). That’s all cool. I would not discount Intelligent Design myself, though, until I’d read through some well-explained math that had been reviewed by a whole lot of scientists/mathematicians of all sorts. Some features of life that evolved just seem too clever to have just come from a slow transition. Oh, and calm the fuck down.

    • Replies: @anon
  52. peterAUS says:
    @ThreeCranes

    The difference between you and I is that I’m humble and honest enough to admit that I don’t understand everything going on around me and I’m intelligent enough to realize that none of the rest of you do either. I’m perfectly content with ambiguity and doubt and have faith that tomorrow we shall know more than we do today, though I won’t be here to enjoy that new knowledge.

    Pretty much.
    Well, perhaps not quite re the last sentence, save some major breakthrough in genetics. You know, maybe we simply can’t grasp some things as ape can’t. Just a thought.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  53. peterAUS says:
    @anonymous

    .

    .. it can be amusing and revealing to see anti-religious zealots cite to their own higher authority, just a fellow supreme being wearing a robe and swinging a gavel atop a secular altar.

    Yep.

    • Replies: @anon
  54. @anon

    You are writing to a Constitutionalist Libertarian, dude. I am probably more on-board with what our Founders thought than you and 95% of the (even Non-Commie) folks who write for and in-on unz.com. Do you remember that “ass/u/me” thing from The Bad News Bears? It’s probably on youtube.

    Are you going to tell me next that there is no such thing as a wall of separation between church and state?

    Yes, that’s from Thomas Jefferson, pretty much my favorite of the Founders of my country (maybe tied with Mr. Franklin), but it’s not in Amendment I. The whole thing is on-line, man! There shall be no established “government” religion is the gist of it.

    Do you understand, #889, that there was no such thing as government (aka public) schools during the 1st years of our Republic? Yes, people were plenty smart, were they not? Mandatory schooling is not something our Founders would have liked a bit. Do you think the Dept. of Education, causing Federal control of education was Constitutional, Anon-889? Read Amendment X – again, it’s all on the web!

    So, when parents want to decide for themselves what their children will and will not learn, do you suddenly have a problem with that? It was never about what some (to them) “idiots in New York” wanted to teach their kids. Nowadays, however, the globohomo (never used that before, but I like it) agenda is pushed on everyone. There is nobody on the left saying “oh, this is how we want our kids to grow up. You do what you want.” That is the thing with Commies, Socialists, and the ctrl-left of all types – they do not want to leave ANYONE alone.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @BengaliCanadianDude
  55. @anon

    So I was right then, Thank you for your support.

    (Do you see the “State Legislatures” in there? Would it not work out a whole lot better without government schools to begin with?)

    • Replies: @anon
  56. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    You have ducked my questions.*

    *You don’t see a judge decreeing that creationism is by definition (“thus”) religious and therefore to be banned from discourse as puritanical? A robed authority saying, in effect, that “thou shalt have no other god before me”?

    • Replies: @anon
  57. Ragno says:
    @anon

    Like this extremely popular Jewish Rabbi?

    Only on His mother’s side.

    • Replies: @anon
  58. Rich says:
    @anon

    I don’t have a dog in the fight. I work in engineering where we actually have to build and maintain machinery that works. Sitting around discussing how old your faith believes the world is, whether there was a big bang or an author, or an intelligent designer who created the big bang, is pointless. Doesn’t make wheels turn, ships sail or rockets fly. You are certainly entitled to believe in whatever crackpot theory you want, none of it serves any purpose, though, from what I can see.

    I hope I didn’t insult your obviously deeply held religious beliefs. It wasn’t my intention.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Dutch Boy
  59. Realist says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You are arguing a false dichotomy.

    You are welcome to indoctrinate your children with religious dogma….but do not presume to indoctrinate mine.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  60. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cloudbuster

    > you falsify ID

    Karl Popper, did well enough.

    Finally, Popper notes that theism as an explanation of adaptation “was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached” (Popper 1976, 172).

    Claim CA211.1: Popper on natural selection’s testability
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html

  61. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    > your obviously deeply held religious beliefs

    It’s cute when believers like you try to insult the integrity of science by dragging it down into the mud with your deeply held religious beliefs.

    • Replies: @Rich
  62. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I countered your argument, and did not support it. If you want to play silly LoLbertarian word games, you go right ahead, that’s all they have anyway. Would it not work out a whole lot better without government roads to begin with too? Teh Roads!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  63. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Loaded questions like yours are called “rhetorical questions.” Tricks like yours are for kids, are they not? Now answer the question!

  64. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    Only a clueless moron of a creationist thinks a court case in which creationists were caught in their creationist lie that ID isn’t creationism somehow makes the judge into a deity. All you’re doing is showing is your inner weasel.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  65. nickels says:

    As soon as the incredibly dumb theory of evolution gained traction in America and the west, philosophy started to circle the toilet and the [email protected] stains circling the pipes bubbled up to become our greatest thinkers.
    American pragmatism, the great turd of American thought and a parallel system to Marxism being the prime example.

    • Replies: @anon
  66. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ragno

    Oh right, I forgot that John 4:22 says, “Salvation is half from the Jews.” 🙂

    • Replies: @Ragno
  67. Creationism is alive and well among Islamists. Turkey has been pushing evolution and Darwin out of schools for a while now. Both Saudi Arabia and Sudan have banned the teaching of evolution in schools, and creationism is very strong in Morocco and Algeria.

    Creationism is also popular in Sub-Saharan Africa and the less educated parts of Brazil. I wonder if the eagerness of low IQ brown and black people to promote creationism has helped weaken its appeal to educated whites and Asians.

    • Replies: @anon
  68. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > it’s not in Amendment I

    Jefferson explicitly states that it is.

    I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” [i.e., Amendment I] thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

    Thomas Jefferson, 1802
    Source: Library of Congress

    Are you one of those Liars for Jesus?

    > there was no such thing as government (aka public) schools during the 1st years of our Republic?

    This bill proposes to lay off every county into small districts of five or six miles square, called hundreds, and in each of them to establish a school for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. The tutor to be supported by the hundred, and every person in it entitled to send their children three years gratis, and as much longer as they please, paying for it.

    Thomas Jefferson, 1784
    Notes on the State of Virginia, Queries 14 AND 19, 146–49, 164–65

    You are so full of shit, Achmed, that you’ve become a valuable asset: fertilizer for the garden. I’m going to get the loader on the tractor and hook up the manure spreader.

  69. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @nickels

    As soon as the incredibly dumb religion of Christianity gained traction in the West, philosophy—and the ability of a philosopher to actually eat something enough to philosophize—started to circle the toilet.

    • 380 AD Theodosius makes Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
    • 400-800 AD Population of Rome fell by over 90%, mainly because of famine and plague.

    There are serious consequences for worshiping a Jewish Rabbi with this sort of advice: “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body.” As you put it, incredibly dumb.

    > a parallel system to Marxism

    Where do you imagine Marx got his inspiration for his famous maxim? Karl Marx didn’t write this, he plagiarized it: “Not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them…and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” (Acts 4:32-35)

  70. Dutch Boy says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    Quite correct. Human races and dog varieties are the result of genetic drift and natural (in the case of humans) and human-devised (in the case of dogs) selection. Both processes can produce races/varieties with significant differences in physique, temperament and intelligence.

  71. Rich says:
    @anon

    I guess I’m not making myself clear, I don’t know what the origin of man, or beginning of the universe, was or is. Naturally, I took biology at school, and read a few books about evolution, but in the end, none of it is important. The origin of man is unknowable. You have faith in the folks who are sure the evidence is buried somwhere in the fossil record, and others are sure it’s in a holy book. None of you can actually prove your theories. Maybe it’s fun for you philosophy or religious studies majors, I’m too busy living in the real world.

    • Replies: @anon
  72. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Who else but a zealot like you uses bold for a whole comment, and shouts in all caps in another. You’re zealous, because you believe this: “Do not let your zeal subside.”

    > I’ve never heard of proponents of evolutionary theory ever pointing out some nice mathematical models

    You’re parroting false “Creationist Claim CA350: No gradual biochemical evolution models have been published.” We even know the source of your false claim. (Behe, 1996) Read all about it here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA350.html

    Oh, and calm the fuck down.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  73. Rich says:
    @Realist

    I hate to burst your bubble, but evolutionary theory is as much a religious dogma as the creation account in Genesis, or the Iroquois creation theory.

    Of course if your argument is about whether there have been physical changes in the various creatures on Earth over history, and that the fittest seem to survive, you’ve got a decent argument. If you’re claiming evolutionary theory as it stands today explains both the origin of man and of the universe, you’re right there with those fellows in India praying beside the Ganges.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Realist
  74. Dutch Boy says:
    @Jim Sweeney

    Not only Aquinas but pagan and rationalist philosophers have argued the case for Theism on similar grounds.

    Belief in evolution is driven by philosophical atheism (as it was explicitly in Darwin’s case).

    • Replies: @anon
  75. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    > You started out ridiculing…

    You’re projecting; you ridiculed the article in comment #4.

    > …creationists as weak-minded.

    If I did that, I’m only agreeing with the creationists’ source book, which, ironically, happens to be in complete agreement with science! Problem? 🙂

  76. @Anon

    Yeah. You go ahead and try explaining gravity to any advanced physicist. Do you mind if I eavesdrop?

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @anon
  77. Anon[799] • Disclaimer says:

    “I wonder if the eagerness of low IQ brown and black people to promote creationism has helped weaken its appeal to educated whites and Asians.”

    It’s a conceit among white liberals that immigration will be good for the perpetuation of their political beliefs. I don’t think it will be. The current democrat coalition is predicated on the belief that upper class liberals can control minorities forever by sicking them against “The Other”. That’s partly why California is so pozzed: white liberals have to embrace every fringe group possible in order to hold their coalition together in the wake of soaring Hispanic births as a percentage of all births in the state; there were more Hispanic births in California last year than white and Asian births combined. The Leftist governing elite in California are definitely feeling the heat. Eventually, though, that will fail. Polls reveal minorities to be closer to white social conservatives in their beliefs on creationism, abortion, and gays. So, you can expect gay marriage to become controversial again sometime in the next 30 years. Same with abortion rights and creationism. I don’t think abortion will be outright banned, but some restrictions on abortion are inevitable under current demographic trends – probably also on women’s modesty issues and pornography. You can expect the same with gay and trans rights at some point. Personally, I don’t see the problem with simply having a socially conservative Hispanic governor of California. There might very well be an opening there should some moderate Hispanic politician reach out to both his ethnic group and republican voters in that state. Call it the posthumous revenge of the Christian Coalition. Democrats may have destroyed the nation with immigration but social conservatives will have the last laugh as Left wing rights are restricted.

  78. @peterAUS

    Or maybe, as some physicists have suggested, our vocabulary is simply not up to the job of describing what they are modeling with mathematics. Acknowledging this, one frustrated physicist said, “mathematics is the language of the future.”

    Words like “chance” and “randomness” may not really apply. So, we’re back to the old “can we think something for which we have not yet developed concepts”?

  79. Dutch Boy says:
    @Russell s

    An exchange between Behe (a professional scientist and evolution skeptic) and Khan would be interesting.

    • Replies: @anon
  80. @ThreeCranes

    “The earliest gravity (possibly in the form of quantum gravity, supergravity or a gravitational singularity), along with ordinary space and time, developed during the Planck epoch (up to 10−43 seconds after the birth of the Universe), possibly from a primeval state (such as a false vacuum, quantum vacuum or virtual particle), in a currently unknown manner.”

    Gosh, uncertainty about such a simple thing, one that you “feel [no] need to stop and explain”.

    • Replies: @anon
  81. Mulegino1 says:

    Evolution, as commonly understood- macro-evolution- is false.

    It is false in the sense that is not true to its etymological origins (evolution is defined as an unfolding of something which preexists, such as a scroll ); but micro-evolution- the variations within a species due to suitability to environment and natural selection- is true and is entirely etymologically consonant with the term.

    Transformism is the more suitable term to refer to the magical, pseudo-scientific theory designed to attribute to time and matter what was previously attributed to God via formal and final causality and thus invert the causal order from one in which the qualitative (final and formal) is superior to the quantitative (efficiency and matter). In other words, there is no vertical causality, only creeping matter which somehow organizes itself via a mechanism which is a truism, namely, “the survival of the fittest.”

    Things are what they are because of formal and final causality, not because of some ridiculous random mutation or deformation. They will remain so.

    The concepts of abiogenesis and the primordial soup are two of the dumbest and grossest
    superstitions to arise from the so called “scientific community” and have been totally exploded by the genetic code. They are now no more tenable than Darwin’s bathybios, or Haeckel’s “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

    Materialism is a rank superstition of the so called Enlightenment and will not survive much longer. Nor will its twin sister, namely positivist scientism.

    The words “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” are far more reasonable and in accord with what really happened than, “In the beginning spatial dimensions and time were concentrated in an infinitesimal speck and all of a sudden they expanded.”

    • Replies: @anon
  82. peterAUS says:
    @anon

    Look at your comments here.
    The zeal, the language, the attitude. That…ahm…. need.. you are showing.
    And you even appear to be an educated man.

    Hehe..no wonder the world is fucked up as it is.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @dfordoom
  83. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    > None of you can actually prove your theories.

    That’s Creationist Claim “CA202: Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved,” debunked here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

    • Replies: @Rich
  84. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    Yeah, keep deflecting from any point about creation for which you know you’ll be whipped, and you keep focusing on me, personally, the Most Interesting Man in the World. Women too focus on my zeal, the language, the [alpha male] attitude, while beta-orbiters like you stare in wonder. Stay thirsty, my friend.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  85. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > macro-evolution- is false.

    You’re parroting false Creationist Claim “CB902. Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution,” addressed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

    > evolution is defined as an unfolding

    Where is this definition?

    > concepts of abiogenesis

    You’re parroting the following false Creationist claims: “CB050. Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence,” http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html and “CB090. Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis,” http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

    > a truism, namely, “the survival of the fittest.”

    You’re parroting false Creationist Claim “CA500. Survival of the Fittest,” http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

    > exploded by genetics

    You’re parroting false creationists claims covered under the classification CB100: Genetics.

    > materialism

    Yeah, yeah. Creationist Claim CA601.1: Evolution’s materialism

    I have to give you credit for hitting so many false creationist claims in a short comment. At least you’re good at something.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  86. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    How about you go ahead and say gravity and evolution aren’t real because we don’t completely understand with absolute certainty either of them. Do you mind if I watch you jump off the roof?

  87. Jason Liu says:

    Nobody knows what the fuck cultural Marxism is, why can’t you people just say egalitarianism?

    Egalitarianism is the creationism of the left

    Egalitarianism is the emotional dedication to ignorance

    Egalitarianism is the ideology of the human cockroach

    It’s called being verbally effective. Don’t make up shit terminology for which even your own side can’t agree on a single definition. Most people can’t even define regular Marxism. You wanna be extra obscure about your ideas, prepare to be sidelined as a conspiracy theory by your enemies.

    • Replies: @anon
  88. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    I hate to burst your bubble, but you’re simply parroting an old and false Creationist Claim “Claim CA610: Evolution is a religion,” http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

    Can one of you creationist believers come up with something new that I can’t immediately find and debunk at Mark Isaak’s Index to Creationist Claims?

    • Replies: @Realist
  89. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    > Behe (a professional scientist

    Can there any good thing come out of tenured academia?

    The Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences, where Behe is a tenured professor, has seen fit to prominently dissociate itself from Behe’s views on intelligent design. Behe acknowledges that most of his colleagues disagree with him.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  90. “My very strong preference is that youngsters in our schools and colleges be taught true facts about nature, and about human nature.”

    Derbyshire, be careful about you prefer. We would have to teach that there are 3 racial groups: Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Negroids. We would have to teach that Caucasoids are the most intelligent and creative. Your Mongoloid family would not be happy about this.

    I started listening to Vox Day last month. He had an interesting youtube about China and the Chinese people. He said they are not Western and never will be Western. Exactly what I’ve been saying for months and months. He recommended that people read books written by the Chinese themselves, which detail their horrible natures. Wild Swans and Outlaws of the Marsh were some he recommended.

    Again, you and your family must move to China. We cannot have human natures like yours and your family’s in the West.

    • Replies: @anon
  91. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    You are parroting false Creationist Claim “CE440: Cosmologists cannot explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from,” http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html

    It’s like playing Creationist Bingo!

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  92. 95Theses says:
    @Rich

    A big fat Amen! to that.

    It’s interesting that your observation mirrors my own experience – the reflexive resort to the pejorative for fanatic atheists/Darwinists is so frequent that it is almost axiomatic!

    The only exception of which I am personally aware regards an atheist coworker with whom I became friends. As you might expect, we would frequently engage in spirited (though friendly) debates on the question of origins. But although I readily admitted my own biases, he was absolutely incapable of making a single concession that his own views harbored any presuppositions. He seemed to sense (rightly) that the instant he did so the jig was up, and all pretense to objectivity was done for.

    But … he never lost his cool or felt the need to stoop to the ad hominem. Being now retired, I confess to missing our occasional crossing of swords. He was a very able opponent.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @peterAUS
  93. @anon

    The “[i.e., Amendment I] in your quotation is an interpolation of some editor.

    At the time of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which the phrase about a “wall of separation” occurred, Connecticut had an established church of Puritan (Congregational) polity, and did until 1818; Massachusetts similarly did until 1833. There was never any litigation to overturn those establishments, nor could there have been. The First Amendment was held to prohibit the Federal government from an establishment of religion, but was not understood to be applicable to the states, and would not become so until the 20th-century development of the doctrine that the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporated” the application of the Bill of Rights to the states.

    The reason why Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptists was that Federalist propaganda during the election season in 1800 had suggested that Jefferson was a “Jacobin,” and would, like Robespierre, replace existing churches with a National Church akin to that of the French Revolution. Of course, at that time, these events (and the terrible slaughter of the Vendéens) were still quite recent. Baptists in Connecticut and Massachusetts had experienced intermittent persecution by the Puritans throughout the colonial period, and were badly treated even after independence, so were naturally wary. Jefferson sought to assure his Baptist correspondents that he intended nothing of the kind, and that in any event the Federal government was constrained from establishing a national religion.

    Jefferson assuredly opposed the establishment of a religion at any level, but understood that a religious establishment at the state level could be undone only by an act of the state legislature, as had been the case under his Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty.

    It is worth contemplating what the Framers of the First Amendment (and their contemporaries) understood by “establishment of religion.” They knew that in England at the time, no one not a communicant of the Church of England could vote in a Parliamentary election or be elected to office; could be commissioned an officer in the Royal Army or Navy; or could matriculate at the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge. There were significant civil disabilities imposed on non-Anglicans. To deduce from the original public meaning of the First Amendment, which contemplated this kind of religious establishment, a prohibition on nativity scenes in public parks, or prayers before city council meetings, is to stretch the understanding of the phrase “establishment of religion” to a point of absurdity. Those arguing for such an interpretation want to read into the Amendment a mandate for public policy akin to the French laïcité which is absent from it under the following clause protecting “free exercise.”

    • Agree: 95Theses
    • Replies: @anon
  94. peterAUS says:
    @anon

    …Women too focus on my…beta male….etc.

    Hahaha……that’s what pushing you to ….ahm..”discuss” the topic here.
    Oh man……

    Listen, an advice from an older man: we agnostics here aren’t your problem. Not even the zealots on the opposite side of yours. Same, just opposite. You know….those who seek virgins by blowing themselves up.

    Now, for women today ,true, they aren’t quite as those I chased in my prime so I probably understand your frustration, some deep down doubts and such. Hard world with all this feminist shit around, true.

    You know, why don’t you re-read that Three Cranes post with “humble” inside?
    Could help you with getting some. Give it a shot. Better than this online masturbation of yours.

    Good luck.

    • Replies: @anon
  95. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Belief in creationist magic is driven by intellectual retardation, as it was explicitly in Christianity’s case.

    “Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” (Matthew 11:25) “Except ye be converted, and become as little children.” (Matthew 18:13) “Not many of you were wise by human standards…” (1 Corinthians 1:18-26)

    But a naturalist, materialist [i.e. Mater-, Mother-ist] scientist need not be an atheist. If Nature = God, as in pantheism, then hard science that disproves christian magical thinking is the most sacred form of theology. And the concept of such pantheism isn’t that foreign, with GNON (Nature or Nature’s God” getting prominent mention in America’s Declaration of Independence.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  96. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    Still focused on me? I told you I’m the Most Interesting Man in the World. The topic is creationism as nostalgic. I humbly request you address it. Although that nostalgia is wearing off as quickly as riding on a buckboard does after a mile or two.

  97. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    A wall works both ways.

  98. MEH 0910 says:

    I’ve been a science geek from childhood, and I spoke up for science and against Creationism in those conservative outlets I was writing for, to the displeasure of some of my colleagues.

    Good work Derb. Thank you.

  99. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @95Theses

    Apparently with you, creationists can lob all the pejorative bullshit they want, and when I bounce it back to them, nearly word-for-word, and they go apeshit, it’s your reflexive knee-jerk action to blame the non-creationist. Look at the history, your creationist buddy Rich starts straight off lobbing the terrorist label. You’re fine with that.

  100. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jason Liu

    > Egalitarianism is the creationism of the left

    True. The “we all bleed red” canard comes from this Leftist Jewish text:

    “And hath made of one blood all nations of men.”

    One Blood = We All Bleed Red. Christianity’s Creationism is no different than today’s Leftist Egalitarianism. Even the self-styled “conservative” churches are still fretting over saving all the black babies for Jebus.

  101. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen

    Vox “Pocahantas” Day identifies as a Mongoloid Injun; therefore, by his own standard, he can never be Western either.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  102. Ragno says:
    @anon

    It’s a shame all the pay phones are long gone, or I’d’ve handed you a dollar and told you to go call every friend you’ve got in this world, and then hurry back with my change.

    Damn technology!

    • Replies: @anon
  103. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence.

  104. Realist says:
    @Rich

    I hate to burst your bubble, but evolutionary theory is as much a religious dogma as the creation account in Genesis, or the Iroquois creation theory.

    Someone as illogical as you will never burst my bubble.

    • Replies: @Rich
  105. peterAUS says:
    @95Theses

    A big fat Amen! to that.

    Yep.

    …he was absolutely incapable of making a single concession that his own views harbored any presuppositions.

    That’s the M.O.

    …. he never lost his cool or felt the need to stoop to the ad hominem.

    Lucky you.
    The only people I, actually, got a civil response from have been educated believers. Never had a problem with an educated Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, those Indian types….nope.
    Hehe…the truly fucked up conversationalists have always been true atheists.
    Makes sense.

    When I was an atheist (I was younger…seen less of the world and life….) I had plenty of chats with priests and imams. Never a slip out of very polite argument.
    Now…hehe….as older man, when I came across a rabid atheist, oh my. On the positive side doesn’t last long.

    That need to be abusive is…..interesting. Not just arrogant, “I am better than you”, but plainly abusive.
    I have a theory, of course.Two words: death and fear. Not necessarily in that order.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Polemos
  106. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ragno

    Yours is false Creationist Claim “CA012: Snobbery,”
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA012.html

    Thanks for the help with playing Creationist Bingo.

    P.S. That claim’s source is from the Derb himself! 🙂

  107. peterAUS says:

    Maybe interesting for a couple of guys around:
    https://www.thecut.com/2016/11/a-science-y-explanation-for-why-angry-athiests-are-annoying.html
    The gist:

    ..For some (loud, argumentative) people, science isn’t just a collective endeavor to understand the world….. It’s a moral system: To be unscientific is to be unethical,

    And, the best:

    Guy In Philosophy Class Needs To Shut The Fuck Up

    In all fairness, that’s not bad.
    Beats Gulags and/or mass shootings.

    • Replies: @anon
  108. @anon

    Um, I grew up in a family headed by an Ivy League PhD hard scientist. I stopped going to church at the age of twelve because even then I thought it was a bunch of baloney.

    Before you, no one ever confused me with being a creationist. Oh well, there’s a first time for everything! You’re literally blinded by your emotional need to hear what you want–or rather, need–to hear.

    Have a nice life.

    • Replies: @anon
  109. Rich says:
    @anon

    And if I cared enough to Google it, I could find countless articles that debunk your theory. Once again, this is a mystery that cannot be solved. Zealots like yourself can pound on the table, shake your shoe and call others all the names you want,still doesn’t prove your theory.

    • Replies: @anon
  110. Rich says:
    @Realist

    I’m amused to learn that your bubble is so secure, no other ideas or opinions can penetrate it. Must be interesting.

    • Replies: @anon
  111. Hail says: • Website
    @ThreeCranes

    Nowhere does the author define what he means by the word “creationism”. So how do we, the readers, know whether to agree or disagree with him?

    This is a good point.

    As for the rest of your comment, it is said that everyone perceives God in a different way, and there may not be as much a dividing line between your posited two types as it may first appear.

  112. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    > true atheists

    I suppose you think the Pope, even John Paul II, is atheist, huh? You’re a true dumbfuck making the false Creationist Claim “CA602: Evolution is atheistic,” http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

    > That need to be abusive

    Is yours, as “atheist” is a pejorative term when somebody is not one. Thanks for playing, shit for brains. Hey, I’ll apologize for shooting pejorative terms back at you if you apologize for using them first. But you won’t, because you’re a bully and a coward both.

  113. @anon

    I don’t have the energy tonight (and early wake-up tomorrow) to rebut all of your stupidity. I will get to it, I promise. I just want to point out that your presence on this thread with something like 30% of the comments is a PICTURE PERFECT illustration of one of Mr. Derbyshire’s points – the one I agree with. No, you’re obviously not a Cultural Marxist (or Egalitarian(ist?) per Mr. Liu), as you seem to be somewhat Libertarian even (with a big exception). However, you have your atheist/anti-Creationist/ID book, chapter and verse, to come at everyone with, even those who you really might agree with if you calmed the fuck down.

    What brought you on here today, Mr. #889? Why did you feel you had to rebut every comment that didn’t support atheism and/or evolution 100%? Have you gone completely mental?

    • Replies: @anon
  114. @anonymous

    Sorry for the late reply, but I also didn’t get it till a while later … ;-}

  115. Mr. Peter Hitchens (not an American) wrote several thoughtful and cogent defenses of Intelligent Design theory on his MoS blog, back, I think, in 2006 or 2007. In particular he defended several of Mr. Behe’s ideas as worthy of consideration.

    For me the heart of the problem goes back to watching (or rather being made to watch) Inherit the Wind in school. I remember my skin crawling–it was a first taste of pure crude propaganda. And it was working; by the middle of the film clearly I was surrounded by classmates who actively hated Bryan and his allies. At one point there’s an idiotic scene–the filmmakers really descend to this rubbish–in which Bryan’s wife slaps Darrow’s wife (good grief) and one of my classmates actually shouted out “slap her back!”. Of course Darrow’s wife was nobler…to this day (and three decades have passed since then) I still feel that’s the closest I’ve come to being in the middle of a show trial. I’d tremble to think what would have happened had any actual fundamentalist appeared in the midst of that class at that time. And yet my classmates were very decent types and yet it was so easy to manipulate them with that dreck.

    Later I discovered how deeply dishonest that film was. It made people, a culture, a trial appear absurd which in fact were nothing of the kind. And this is where my own suspicions arise. If evolution were so incontrovertibly true, why resort to that kind of gross, crude, Chinese-communist party-worthy propaganda on behalf of it?

    And at such a price. William Jennings Bryan had many faults; he also had many virtues; he was a decent, in some ways heroic American statesman of a sort we could use a few more of today. We never so much as heard his name in American history lessons. Nor did we read Vachel Lindsay’s poem in American literature. He’s been reduced, as far as our education is concerned, to this grotesque travesty in a low, dishonest film shown for propaganda purposes. So forgive me for not cheering as the car of evolution passes by in triumph.

    Anyway, I’ll say one thing–Mr. Hitchens has been proven right about many things over the years, just as so many of the bien-pensant types who would never dare question evolution have been proven wrong. Wouldn’t it be funny if he was right about this too.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @nsa
  116. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    > countless articles that debunk your theory

    Neither countless nor scientific journal articles.

    > this is a mystery that cannot be solved.

    You’re parroting Creationist Claim Claim CA100.1:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100_1.html

    > Zealots like yourself…call others all the names you want…

    I’d bet the irony of your psychological projection flies right over your head.

    • Replies: @Rich
  117. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    You were a smart ass, I beat you at your game. So much for that Ivy League rubbing off on you. Next time, don’t sound so stupid, and then you won’t feel the shame of being mistaken for a dumbass creationist.

  118. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    You’re parroting false Creationist Claim CI402: Evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI402.html

  119. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    Still name-calling with the pejorative term “atheist?” Are you doing it out of anger, or just pure stupidity? I’m not an atheist. But you’re a retard straight off the short bus. Now if you’ll apologize for using pejorative terms, I’d be glad to exchange apologies. Of course, you won’t apologize, because you’re a bully and coward, and only psychologically projecting your own bitter anger onto others. Probably because you’re bitter at losing an argument. Maybe you should grow up.

    See also: Creationist Claim CA602: Evolution is atheistic.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

  120. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Telemachos

    A first taste of pure crude propaganda? LOL Never attended Sunday School or Church? Does a fish know what water is?

  121. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > you have your atheist

    Not an atheist, you abusive Pedophile. If you don’t like pejorative terms then don’t use them yourself, ok, Achmed the Pedophile?

    > Have you gone completely mental?

    Are you practicing you professional specialty, Soviet Psychiatry, again?

    Calm the fuck down yourself, Pedo-Stalinist.

    P.S. I suggest for starters that you quit banging away at the false Creationist Claim CA602. Evolution is atheistic.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  122. Rich says:
    @anon

    Can you possibly be this thick? There are more than two sides to the argument. Is everything in your life really that black and white? No gray at all? I haven’t made a single argument in favor of “creationism ” yet you keep writing “creationist ” over and over. Just because those who follow the religion of Evolution control “science ” journals, doesn’t make their religion more true than any other religion. There are endless examples of establishment “scientists ” calling a theory false, until it turns out to be true. But like an adherent of the cult of Kali, you’re unable to see the holes in your faith. It’s okay I guess…

    • Agree: 95Theses
    • Replies: @anon
  123. Anonymous[281] • Disclaimer says:

    If you feel you want to comment at that blog, let me tell you that Razib is a serious rival to Greg Cochran for the world championship of Not Suffering Fools Gladly.

    A good euphemism to say that both are rude, narcissist pricks who overvalue their own intelligence.

    In the end, so-called “HBD” is almost as bad as “Cultural Marxism”, which might as well be called “Cultural Capitalism”, as Big Corporate is advancing it, not commie hippies.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @dfordoom
  124. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    > your faith

    Creationist Claim CA610: Evolution is a religion.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

    You keep making Creationist Claims, I keep identifying them. If you’re butthurt over it, then don’t make false Claims.

  125. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Goes to show that people with IQs further apart than 20 points can hardly communicate effectively. You overvalue your own vulgarity.

  126. @Achmed E. Newman

    ctrl-left

    Ooh I like that term. I’m not that intelligent so pardon the ignorance, but is it because Alt-Right has Alt, which is a key on the keyboard, and since the left is at the other end, you used “Ctrl” to basically differentiate, and contrast the two..?

    Really like that new term. You have your way with creating these nifty expressions. I really admire your locution in that regard.

    Mandatory schooling is not something our Founders would have liked a bit. Do you think the Dept. of Education, causing Federal control of education was Constitutional, Anon-889? Read Amendment X – again, it’s all on the web

    Yeah I never got the whole mandatory gig for this stuff. We’re not all interested in being force-fed racemixing and other LGBTQ and the other alphabet propaganda on a daily basis. Imagine being coerced under designated legislations to attend an institution that you have no desire in attending, an institution that forces you to do homework, an institution that orders you to do things during the hours you are present without any monetary compensation of any kind to you. An institution that if you refuse to attend, you will be punished under gratuitous laws. There is no wiggle room in this, if you have not been present and you absence has been noted, the rightly ordained alphabet agencies will intervene, and possibly take away custody rights, or even charge you with (maybe) criminal negliegence even. When you, the student, are at school, you will be ordered by your teachers, to do different things, and if you do not obey like the sheep you are being molded into, you will face….MORE REPERCUSSIONS. “Do this..or else”….Lots of intimidation tactics being utilized in these unforunate scenarios. And what happens when you hand in your homework, or perform some pretentious skit about the current ((Frankfurt School)) “global issues i.e. “transphobia”, “homophobia” etc..? You do not receive direct monetary compensation. You are being forced to do a whole plethora of mundane tasks which hold no real purpose under threat of criminal and legal punishment and you are also being forced to acquiesce in these fatuous charades of “social justice” in front of overpaid Marxist ingrates without gratis(monetary compensation).

    So many things wrong with this…..To me this sounds like a form of slavery…..Why do the adolescents of today accept it without any major bouts of dissension or protest? Man…the servility we witness these days has been ingrained deeply within the moral fibres of the youth that they have become such sheeple, that bow their heads and bend their knees to any and all authority…without any sort of fruitful introspection…without any sort of inquisitive challenge to authority……What a damn shame. The ramped up indoctrination campaigns have clearly been working, and as you can see…..the results are coming in….and it does not look good.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  127. nsa says:
    @Telemachos

    Mencken covered the Scope’s Trial in person. His articles were both hilarious and devastating. He states Bryan on the witness stand as a biblical expert denied being a mammal under cross examination by Darrow. Bryan later denied saying any such thing, making him a liar as well as a moron.

  128. Anon[913] • Disclaimer says:

    “Yeah. You go ahead and try explaining gravity to any advanced physicist. Do you mind if I eavesdrop.”

    Congrats on totally missing the point of that comment. You claim to be educated yet your reading comprehension is quite limited.

    “Intelligence and religiosity are inversely related.”

    Perhaps, but IIRC the difference between religious and non-religious whites is fairly small, maybe three points best. Both groups will have IQs 15 points or so higher than the average black IQ. Your average religious white zealot would be something bordering on a genius among Africans, or at least way above average.

  129. @anon

    I heard him say this but he is not phenotypically American Indian.

    However, the American Indian is part of the USA. The Chinese are not and never will be a part of the USA or the West. Derbyshire and his Chinese family have to go.

    • Replies: @anon
  130. But what’s wrong with me holding a Pascals Wager kind of outlook in all of this? Isn’t that the most logical? Obviously, this seems to apply for the main “FAMILY OF THE BOOK” religions, like Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism perhaps even. There’s a small chance isn’t there? And what’s wrong with having a bit of an insurance policy in the grand scheme of things? You have nothing to lose and all of that.

    Obviously this does not apply to “faiths” like Rastafarianism, Pastafarianism, the other Astafarianism, Sikhism(very newly developed religion, very unique concepts and tenets present within, but that is in fact a discussion for another day), and what not.

    You may rightly see to it that is a gamble, like a lottery of some sort, but we are talking about heaven and hell, life and death, the hereafter. You can lose the 6-7 dollars from the Max Lotto and come back from the loss, as it is quite a minuscule amount and because it has not taken a substantial hit on your wallet, but when we’re talking about death…..

    Isn’t it better to drive your new Ferrari with insurance? And with that a plan that is very inexpensive and rather economically priced and efficient for your needs? That’s what I think of this whole thing

    Regards,

    BCD

    • Replies: @anon
  131. peterAUS says:

    This topic pops up here every now and then.
    Zealots from both side of the “coin” have the stage, of course. That’s O.K. Funny thing is that, recently, those from atheist side are much more,what’s the word….”passionate”? At least on this site, that is.

    Now, a question for a couple of you, sort of, in the middle of the road, I’ve noticed here: have you ever had an experience where, how to put it, (modern) science simply didn’t compute?
    I have a couple.
    Hehe..no…wasn’t drunk or had any drugs. Wasn’t a result of exhaustion, lack of food/water etc. Happened on a, more or less, normal day/night.

    Interestingly enough, whenever I was chatting about similar topics in a group of, say, 4-5 men, at least one would have a similar experience to share.

    Shakespeare was right there, I guess.

    • Replies: @anon
  132. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen

    AmerInds are genetically Mongoloid. I gave a scholarly reference, which you conveniently ignored, for two reasons:

    (1) Vox “Pocahantas” Day claims to be Injun, and thus Mongoloid, a fact which you can’t accept. If he doesn’t look it, then consider the possibility he’s lying.

    (2) You excuse Mongoloid Amerinds as “American,” thus shooting yourself in the foot regarding the Derb’s fam, who are just as American as you’ve allowed for the Mongoloid Injuns.

    P.S. Your intelligence is lower than that of a Negroid, and thus, phenotypically speaking, you have to go back.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  133. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    You’re doubling down on the stupid. Evolution =/= Atheism, but you continue to zealously promote such falsehood. Why? You’re the passionate zealot. You keep using the term, and thus revealing yourself through psychological projection. And I have twice as many anecdotal experiences of zealots like you.

  134. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    Pascal’s Wager, illustrated.

  135. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    And you’re simply parroting the straw men your academic atheist gods have set up to try and demolish “creationists.”

    My argument is not primarily from a “Creationist” point of view, but from a metaphysical one.

    You reductionist materialists have a fundamentally false view of nature, and pretend that in the causal order the quantitative time and space bound causes- the material and efficient- enjoy preeminence over the qualitative, or vertical causes, namely the formal and final. You turn the cosmic order on its head.

    Only a blind fool would deny that there is complexity within the order of nature which cannot be explained other than by former and final causation, and that these are not bound by space and time but work through space in time in a timeless, vertical and transcendent way.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @anon
  136. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mulegino1

    Not former but formal causation.

  137. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    You’re rehashing Creationist Claim CA601: It irrationally rules out the possibility of any divine outside influence. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Mulegino1
  138. The very premises of the evolutionism-creationism contest are puzzling to me.
    If, say, 100% of what evolutionism postulates/theorises were true, how would that suggest (let alone prove) that there weren’t a Designer (or something else far out of our ken) behind it?

    The contest’s main purpose is to offer people eager to partake in an ideological contest a popular way to do it.

  139. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    The Word, complete unto itself. Is this source a work of scripture?*

    *Unlike those you’ve dodged, this one is a “rhetorical question.”

    • Replies: @anon
  140. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    “Cultural Marxism”, which might as well be called “Cultural Capitalism”, as Big Corporate is advancing it, not commie hippies.

    Cultural Capitalism. Yes, that sums it up pretty well.

  141. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    According to Marcus Aurelius in the Meditations, the logos is the rational order that permeates all existence; why did the Jewish storytellers in the Jew Testament turn the meaning of the logos on its head into Jewhovah’s Abracadabra? Is this another question you’re going to dodge, because you worship a magical jew?

    P.S. It’s ok to be white.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  142. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    It irrationally rules out the possibility of any divine outside influence.

    So you’re admitting that it is irrational to rule out the possibility of Divine influence? Or are you claiming that it is irrational to claim that ruling out the possibility of Divine influence is irrational? I would say that the burden of proof is on the former, since the visible universe is replete with information. In-form-ation, you will note, pertains to form, i.e., formal causality.

    • Replies: @anon
  143. @anon

    I know American Indians are Mongoloids. Within Mongoloids there are ethnicities, like in the Caucasoid group. You do understand American Indians have been given American citizenship, right?
    No one is concerned about a tiny group like the American Indian. Again, as I stated, and will re-state so that maybe you can finally understand, the Chinese are not part of American history.

    So, I would have to go back to Europe. Assuming you are European, you would too.

    This hair-splitting makes me think you’re the typical cuck, who wet dreams about sending everyone back somewhere. Also, you might be Jewish. You might be involved with Asians, hence your oblique defense of Derbyshire.

    The only one who will be going back will be you as run away and hide when it comes to any real-life actions that will be taken. You have revealed yourself as a complete idiot and coward.

    • Replies: @anon
  144. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    Can’t you read? “Supernaturalism is not ruled out a priori; it is left out because it has never been reliably observed.” Burden of proof is back on you.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  145. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen

    > Within Mongoloids there are ethnicities, like in the Caucasoid group.

    Wrong.

    > You do understand American Indians have been given American citizenship, right?

    Doesn’t magically change them from Mongoloid to Caucasian, as you falsely assert.

    > Assuming you are European, you would too.

    Here first, no-can-do, Miss Jew Princess.

    First Americans were European | Live Science
    http://livescience.com/7043-americans-european.html

    > you might be Jewish

    You’re projecting, Moishe.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  146. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    “Is this another question you’re going to dodge, because you worship a magical jew?”

    No.

    As at least one other commenter has already observed, anyone who so much as questions your devout beliefs becomes — in your mind — your mirrored, zealous foe. Fanatic.

    Look back upthread to see whether you’ve saved any souls. If not, well, at least you got some bile out over being dragged to church as a kid, or whatever it was that made you see the light.

    And all because Mr. Derbyshire cut and pasted another self-referential war story.

    • Replies: @anon
  147. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    You’re pschologically projecting your own devout, fanatical beliefs, which are threatened by the natural sciences. At least you got some bile out over being dragged to science class as a kid, or whatever it was that made you so bitter.

  148. Dutch Boy says:
    @anon

    I don’t think evolutionists would accept your Mother-ist pantheism either.

    • Replies: @anon
  149. Dutch Boy says:
    @anon

    I am well aware that Behe is not popular with the evolutionist establishment. An exchange with Khan would be interesting, not because of Behe’s popularity but because he makes scientific arguments against evolution (and Khan makes them for evolution).

    • Replies: @anon
  150. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    You’re contradicting Creationist beliefs that they already do profess such a religion, e.g., “The faithful in the Church of Darwin can best be described as pantheists.” (Coppedge, 2010)

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  151. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    I think he should debate Ken Ham, who claims Behe “undermines biblical authority.”

    One of the points I have made over and over again through the years is that when one takes man’s fallible ideas of evolution and millions of years and adds those to Scripture, he reinterprets the clear words of the Bible and undermines biblical authority. I have also warned that when such compromise exists in one generation, it usually becomes much greater in the next, and then the next—until the foundation of God’s Word is lost from people’s thinking. Actually, this is what the Already Gone book research has illustrated in regard to why two thirds of young people are leaving the church by the time they reach college age.

    Intelligent Design Is Not Enough
    https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/08/31/intelligent-design-is-not-enough/

  152. As best I can tell Mr Derbyshire, all your article accomplished was to induce acrimonious and vituperative interchange among a limited group of posters who although obviously talented feel the need to interject the (adj./noun/verb) “fuck” into their rhetoric—as though it adds something to their arguments. I don’t imagine that was your intention. BTW, has anyone ever won a debate on blogs such as this?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @peterAUS
  153. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @Simply Simon

    The first pejorative term used is atheist; after that, the fanatical bomb-throwers are begging for a free-for-all. To be sure, atheist is “used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced.” (Drachmann, 1922) Fuckface is a mild insult on appearances in comparison to a moral condemnation. If the religious snowflakes can’t take it, they shouldn’t dish it out. Apparently their parents forgot to teach them that lesson, so I’m here to make up for their lack of proper rearing.

  154. peterAUS says:
    @Simply Simon

    BTW, has anyone ever won a debate on blogs such as this?

    Don’t think so.
    There is another question, though: Can that debate be won in the first place? Don’t think so, either, but that’s just me.

    These two guys tried:
    https://strangenotions.com/the-most-famous-debate-on-the-existence-of-god/
    Don’t think it was conclusive.

    Hehe….you see any such a mind in the current blogoshpere?

    More importantly, the environment changed. Imagine BBC today hosting such a thing. Oh my…
    Progress, a?

    As for debating in general…hehe…this site isn’t about that.
    Almost all of Internet is the same.
    The primary purpose of all this..ahm…communication is something else.Let’s leave it there.

    • Replies: @anon
  155. @anon

    Have you heard of Koreans, Japanese, Cambodians, etc.? These are ethnicities in the Mongoloid group.

    Have you heard of Germans, Italians, Irish? These are ethnicities.

    I stated citizenship about American Indians, not their racial group.

    Moi, Jewish? Non.

    You didn’t deny having Asians in your life. Another Derbyshire type.

    • Replies: @anon
  156. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen

    You didn’t deny having canine in your life. Another furry. Your kind of “logic” is so fun!

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  157. anon[889] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    You’re still conflating evolution with atheism. We’re not debating theism/atheism here. We’re discussing evolution/creationism, or rather the nostalgia of the debate before the creationists essentially lost on the public forum. When do you suppose you can get on topic? Or are you purposely trying to derail?

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  158. Dutch Boy says:
    @anon

    That is beside the point. Pantheism is the sort of vitalism that Evolutionists reject, whatever some Creationist might claim.

    • Replies: @anon
  159. @anon

    I never mentioned canines. Illogical of you to bring them up.

    Once again, you are another Western male face-planted in Asian poontang. Any time I ask males if they are involved with Asian females, they will reply yes or no. You have not replied at all. I wonder why???…

    • Replies: @anon
  160. Characteristically, Derbyshire says nothing, but says it furiously while affirming his allegiance to Right Thought. Note the total lack of content in what he says. If he wants to discredit intelligent design, why doesn’t he begin by showing that their arguments are wrong? Does he even know what they are? I would enjoy seeing him debate, say, Douglas Axe, who holds a PhD in chemistry from CalTech and has done biochemical research on the matter at places like Cambridge. Axe doubtless would be at a disadvantage discussing theoretical chemistry with a retired COBOL programmer and political activist from Long Island, but I am sure he would give it a manful effort.

    Razib Khan indeed does not suffer fools gladly, and believes than anyone he disagrees with is a fool. He is as intelligent as he is arrogant, making him a leading mind of the age. Unlike Derbyshire, he is competent to answer, or try to, questions regarding evolution. Perhaps Ron Unz could get him to do so civilly. Many, I think, would be interested.

    Evading questions is a Derbyesque habit. He is now chiefly a siege howitzer at Vdare, a race-hustling site for whites like the Southern Poverty Law Center for blacks and La Raza for Hispanics. Ask him what policy he favors with regard to the tens of million citizens of Latin-American citizenship.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @MEH 0910
  161. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    Supernaturalism is not ruled out a priori; it is left out because it has never been reliably observed.

    The vertical or transcendent causes are not directly observed in an empirical sense because they are not quantitative but qualitative and therefore not subject to direct empirical observation. But their effects are manifested throughout the cosmos or universal order.

    To hold that the formal and final causes must be left out because they are not directly observable or measurable is merely a dogmatic diktat of positivism, or materialism, or reductionist empiricism and is a very gross superstition.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Polemos
  162. polaco says:
    @anon

    “In ordinary English, a random event is one without order, predicatability or pattern. The word connotes disaggregation, falling apart, formless anarchy, and fear. Yet, ironically, the scientific sense of random conveys a precisely opposite set of associations. A phenomenon governed by chance yields maximal simplicity, order and predictability–at least in the long run. … Thus, if you wish to understand patterns of long historical sequences, pray for randomness.” Gould [1993: 396f]

    The definition of randomness, used to argue against evolution, comes from statistics, not linguistics:

    Stochastic is synonymous with “random.” The word is of Greek origin and means “pertaining to chance” (Parzen 1962, p. 7). It is used to indicate that a particular subject is seen from point of view of randomness. Stochastic is often used as counterpart of the word “deterministic,” which means that random phenomena are not involved. Therefore, stochastic models are based on random trials, while deterministic models always produce the same output for a given starting condition.

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Stochastic.html

    A phenomenon governed by chance yields maximal simplicity,

    Than why complex physics and math formulas, and difficult explanations, are needed to make sense of the world, and it’s still only scratching the surface.

    Simplicity or complexity? Make your bets, or maybe it’s the simplest possible complexity Gould is talking about.

    Randomness is a theoretical concept. If a phenomenon’s probability of occuring is zero, even though randomness applies to it, there will be no pattern, you can repeat the experiment ad infinitum without producing a guaranteed result, while randomness will still be there.

    Because the 80/20 rule holds, and probabilities can be assigned to natural phenomena, just as the sun does not rise in the morning randomly, but cyclically, the universe looks orderly- the existence of patterns, and therefore predictability, imply the lack of randomness.

    The world has a predeterministic nature, true randomness does not exist in a Newtonian system, and gene mutations don’t happen on the quantum level:

    “It’s hard to guarantee that a given classical source is really unpredictable,”

    “Something like a coin flip may seem random, but its outcome could be predicted if one could see the exact path of the coin as it tumbles. Quantum randomness, on the other hand, is real randomness. We’re very sure we’re seeing quantum randomness because only a quantum system could produce these statistical correlations between our measurement choices and outcomes.” NIST mathematician Peter Bierhorst said.

    Although the article’s title boasts of true randomness, Bierhorst concedes they’re close, but not there yet, after all who can say for sure the hardware they use can’t introduce a currently impossible to identify pattern:

    “A perfect coin toss would be uniform, and we made 1,024 bits almost perfectly uniform, each extremely close to equally likely to be 0 or 1,”

    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2018/04/nists-new-quantum-method-generates-really-random-numbers

  163. @Realist

    … but do not presume to indoctrinate mine.

    Exactly, Realist,. You are getting to the gist of it. Would it not be better if schools and their curricula were controlled at the very local level, if not by parents themselves running small private schools? Try telling the Moslems up in Dearbornistan that they can’t teach about Islam…. NO DON’T – I may disagree with you somewhat, but I want you to live to comment again.

    We don’t really teach religion at home, BTW. I think kids ought to figure this out for themselves as much as they can.

    • Replies: @Realist
  164. polaco says:
    @anon

    The “random chance” criticism is actually a straw man argument, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random (most notably mutation), the cornerstone of Charles Darwin’s theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god or a committee of gods must have intervened – a completely fallacious conclusion.

    Random chance | Rational Wiki
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Random_chance

    • Richard Dawkins: “Darwinism is not a theory of random chance.”

    If both, chance (random mutation) and natural selection need to be involved, it is sufficient to show that only one is impossible, to disprove the hypothesis.

    What is natural selection anyway, if not a coincidental, random convergence of different environmental factors that put living organisms under life threatening conditions. Natural selection itself must come from chance. And the affected life forms happen to be subjected to its pressures at random as well- the primeval organism probably didn’t have any contingency plans, to stack the odds of survival in its favor under different scenarios.

    since evolution does not rely only on random chance.

    You need those elusive ‘random mutations’ first, to produce variations in a population, before there can be any natural selection. So it’s randomness that evolution must rely on in the first place.

    If some primeval organism ‘0’ had appeared, from which all other life forms had to evolve, there could have been no natural selection- no distinguishing trait it could have favored- as all life forms were identical. And ‘0’ obviously could not have originated in a hostile environment. There had to be no pressure and no threat of death, as it would have neither appeared nor survived in such a case – there was no natural selection in the beginning, it could have come only after a mutation or a sequence of mutations had taken place.

    Otherwise, if a sufficiently large number of identical organisms ‘0’ had randomly (how else?) appeared in different places on earth, which had to at least initially be life-forming and sustaining environments, we would’ve still been left with zeros after natural selection had done its job ( the forces of nature pushed these organisms elsewhere where a subset of them was adversely affected and died, some up to that point absent cosmic radiation hit them at home, hot air from a volcano, a lava flow, whatever… ).
    No change without mutations.

    But if sufficiently large groups of different organisms appeared spontaneously/randomly in different places on earth, that in itself implies they had to posses different distinguishing features before natural selection could have acted on them. Chance comes into play before natural selection again.

    And if there were different primeval organisms ‘1’, ‘5’, and ‘6’, appearing independently, at different times, all over the earth, separated from organism ‘0’ by 1, 5, or 6 genetic mutations for example, this, naturally, could have never been thanks to natural selection.

    But all of this makes sense only if we assume the universe is governed by chance.

    natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random

    The way I see it nothing is random, there is an inherent order/determinism in the way the universe works. If you had all the data in the universe, and put it on a computer, everything would be predictable as related to the physical world, the only randomness I can think of is in the human mind/soul.

    By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god or a committee of gods must have intervened – a completely fallacious conclusion.

    Straw man argument. Creationists point out how change can only come as a result of those dreaded, improbable, random mutations.

    Natural selection – which is just survival of the fittest- by itself does not produce change in an organism, change had had to occur before natural selection could have taken its course. Nobody has ever denied natural selection, even without knowing about all the species humans put out of existence

    • Replies: @anon
  165. Polemos says:
    @peterAUS

    Do you see any Christian or Catholic commentators in this comment thread who are using diminishing or dehumanizing epithets for those who disagree with them?

    There are a few.

    But maybe we have to start recognizing our slurs for what they are, as abuse isn’t just coming from true/rabid atheists.

    Still, this is unz. There is a lot of unresolved hostility—or typical male, aggressive behavior around here, mostly because those literate males think their words have power. If you allow people their liberty and give their words space, you see that it’s not really necessary to engage the emotions directly, any more than you have to engage someone many yards away for their emotions. I hope I’m making sense here.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  166. @anon

    Nope, as I just now wrote to Realist, this question of what had been going on in the schools with the teaching of Creationalism is an issue of education, not really a religious argument. Your slight misunderstanding of Amendment I aside, its really a matter of who should be raising your kids. If you think that the Fed Gov should not be involved with education and your State gov. very minimally, if at all, then we are in agreement.

    If you don’t, OTOH, then which exact religion are we all going to agree on, #889, as far as teaching in the schools? If “nothing”, then you go talk to some of those Moslems up in Dearbornistan. Have fun with that. I am not at all in favor of having large numbers of Moslems invade our country with the rest, but I’ll give them credit for standing up for themselves and their beliefs.

    • Replies: @anon
  167. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > transcendent causes are not directly observed

    Playing pretend is like that.

    > a very gross superstition

    You’re psychologically projecting.

  168. @BengaliCanadianDude

    Thanks, BCD. I have enjoyed making up some terminology and using some wordplay on my Peak Stupidity blog. However, as I also gave assumed credit for, I picked up the “ctrl-left” term from a few Steve Sailer posts over a year back. I did write him on his blog to ask if he made this up but got no reply. Additionally, I had a semi-irate commenter let me know that “cntrl-left” was WRONG, and it should be “ctrl-left”, as on a keyboard (fine, but how many of my keys weren’t already smudged-out?) Yeah, it’s on the LEFT side of the keyboard even, and they are all about control, so I think the term is great!

    Anyway, thanks for the compliments. I’ve got go now and try to calm down and enlighten a certain anonymous commenter here … wish me luck …

  169. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Vitalism? In pantheism, God is defined as Nature. No magic necessary.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  170. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen

    You’re another half-breed slut prowling the prison gates for recently released Negroid felons.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  171. @anon

    In addition to what Crawford wrote, my point on the “wall of separation” bit is that it was in Jefferson’s writing, not in the document. I know that that was his reasoned interpretation, and no disagreement really, as it means “lets separate church from this Federal Gov’t”. However, lots of the ctrl-left and atheists in general like to use that phrase to mean there can not even be a Christmas tree in the courthouse and that sort of thing.

    Here’s Amendment I:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Got it? You don’t need to be a lawyer. No state-run religion is allowed (state being the Fed-Gov here), and no religion shall be prohibited.

    As to Virginia’s state-supported schools, no I did not know about that, so thank you. They were not mandatory, and if you read about the Prussian model of education, all that stuff started > a century later. That’s my point – keep Big-Gov out of education, and you won’t run into these battles. Let Creationists (though that in particular is a moot point nowadays) teach their kids (or arrange for teaching thereto) however they want, and ctrl-left nuts can teach their children the Globo-Homo agenda.

    Freedom – does it take too much imagination for you, #889?

    • Replies: @anon
  172. Polemos says:
    @Mulegino1

    Are you Thomistic or Aristotelian or something else? The separation of causes into formal, final, &c is probably not coming up with 889’s response rolodex.

    Still, if transcendental causes have manifested effects, how are they not directly observable? What does ‘manifest’ mean for you in this context, and what is an example of a “direct observation” versus an “indirect observation” (if there is such a category)?

    Are there observations that are not “empirical” or is ’empirical’ a description of the mode or mood of the observation, or perhaps of the framing of the observation, or of the praxis of observing… I hope you see what I am getting at.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @anon
  173. @anon

    This whole damn time, you haven’t been an atheist??! Then what business do you have criticizing people that like the idea of Intelligent Design? They, and any believers in ID, don’t even go into that many details, mainly because most are smart enough to know what they don’t, and will probably NEVER, know.

    What Book and Chapter:Verse of your anti-Creationist Bible did that last paragraph come from?

    In the meantime, what’s your religion there, #889? I bet it involves some pretty detailed explanations of things, that can’t be proven with science. Some of it probably has been said to have been disproved by science, in fact.

    BTW, it’s not a Soviet thing – it’s from some movie, and you have to think it in a British accent thusly “now you’ve gone completely mental.” (I wish I could remember the flick or show.) Maybe you are on some kind of medication that is not working out as the Docs had hoped. (That last one was in my accent.)

    • Replies: @anon
  174. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > Your slight misunderstanding of Amendment I aside

    You’re projecting. Go read Jefferson’s quote again. It doesn’t need a multi-paragraph explainer to water it down to where you can swallow it. Furthermore, you’re just evangelizing libertarianism again. Creationism/evolution is the subject.

  175. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @polaco

    When you grossly misrepresent evolution, it’s easy to “disprove” it.

  176. Mulegino1 says:
    @Polemos

    Still, if transcendental causes have manifested effects, how are they not directly observable? What does ‘manifest’ mean for you in this context, and what is an example of a “direct observation” versus an “indirect observation” (if there is such a category)?

    Say the efficient cause is the planting of a seed, and the material cause is the seed, the photoelectric effect and the soil, water and nutrients which nourish the seed which are, of course, in-formed, not by the merely material elements of the seed but by the information contained in the seed which informs them and directs them towards the final cause, which is the full grown plant or tree itself, which in turn produces more seeds. One can only observe the effects of the formal and final causes acting upon the subordinate efficient and final causes, because while the material and efficient are quantifiable and readily observable, the latter are not empirically observable or mensurable. The fact that people cannot directly observe the higher causes themselves does not mean that they are not part of the causal order. This is the great fallacy of empiricism, which in effect, is the grossest superstition of all because it attributes to matter, space and time- all quantitative things- the workings of the truly qualitative and transcendent and vertical aspects of causality, the formal and final, and, needless to say, the First Cause.

    The gross empiricist or positivist tends to exclude all quality and transcendence from the order of causality on the basis of a dogma, namely that all that exists is what we can measure, and sensually observe, and thereby seeks to establish a world governed only by the subordinate efficient and material causes. Materialism is the attempted exclusion of formal and final causality from the world of beings, and, as such, is a gross superstition.

    • Replies: @anon
  177. Dutch Boy says:
    @Rich

    What is true of engineering is also true of most sciences: evolution is irrelevant to the investigation of how the world works.

    • Agree: Rich
    • Replies: @anon
  178. Dutch Boy says:
    @anon

    So-called scientific Pantheism is just an attempt to dress up hocus pocus as science when it is just addlepated religion.

    • Replies: @anon
  179. Dutch Boy says:
    @anon

    Intelligent Design is an attempt to create a theistic theory of evolution. The evolutionists won’t have it. It must be atheistic or it is not evolution.

    • Replies: @anon
  180. peterAUS says:
    @Polemos

    Well, agree, but there is more there than just

    There is a lot of unresolved hostility—or typical male, aggressive behavior around here, mostly because those literate males think their words have power.

    This place is very good at one thing only: showing that free speech, by itself, has a very little value. Produces negligent results.

    The number of people capable (not just willing, capable) of normal exchange of quality thoughts and ideas is well below dozen here.

    I come here for three reasons:
    Every now and then there IS an excellent post and I’ve learnt a lot here. Requires a long ignore list and mostly skimming through the rest, but, still, it’s worth it.
    I can write what I think (hehe..well, say, some of it anyway) and what most people around here where I live don’t appreciate at all.
    And, it’s good to see the characters around here on this site. The side they, I am sure, hide very well in real life. Sort of keeps one in touch with true human nature in our “polite societies”. Hahaha…just a thought: imagine all of us posting here living in the same neighborhood and talking as we talk here. Oh, my…oh my.

    As for this topic it is simple: I started as, I’d say, atheist. In time switched to agnostic.
    That’s me about debating the topic. “Don’t know; not sure”. Maybe in time I’ll know. Maybe not. Again…hehe..not sure.
    More importantly, for the daily life, I’ve come to conclusion that (the current) believers in God (save Islamists, of course ) are much more tolerant, civil….normal if you will…than the atheists. Makes you think, a?
    Most of the time it’s really simple: there are people who simply can’t live with doubts. They must know.
    Still, from a historical point of view both atheists and the other side have been quite willing to address that ‘doubt” with mass slaughter.
    One could only suspect what some of passionate debaters here would do to the opposition should they have access to firing squads (or worse)? Just a thought.

    • Replies: @anon
  181. @anon

    LOL!!! Still no answer about your Asian females. Actually, your answer is yes.

    • Replies: @anon
  182. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > “wall of separation”

    Jefferson says it is in the First Amendment. So now do the courts, from early on. So who cares how you or somebody else interprets it? It’s there. You hate it. You can kick against it all you want, it still stands.

    > Got it?

    Yep. The courts since Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) have been citing the “Wall of Separation” as being there too. Got it? It’s there. You hate it. You can kick against it all you want, it still stands.

  183. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    So-called? That’s your retarded way of trying to denigrate it? Too bad for you, Spinoza’s Pantheistic GNON is right there in the Declaration of Independence.

    • “Deus, sive Natura” (God, or Nature) —Spinoza
    • “Nature’s God” –Declaration of Independence

    “So called.” LOL Be sure to adjust your interpretation of so-called “natural law” to the correct source, alright?

  184. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    > It must be atheistic

    Ruprecht!

    You keep banging on that pot over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.

    Creationist Claim “CA602: Evolution is atheistic”
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

  185. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Wrong.

    Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[1][2] Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.[3]

    Applications of evolution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution

    You sure are desperate. But we know all your tricks. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

  186. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    not by the merely material elements of the seed but by the information contained in the seed

    DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid material.

    We’ve known that DNA holds that information since 1953. You’re 56 years behind. Time to play a bit of catch-up.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  187. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fred V. Reed

    “Evading questions is a Derbyesque habit.”

    Indeed. Reminds me of columnist Fred Reed’s similarly self-referential, cut & paste attack on “conspiracy theorists.” Dozens of commenters spent time challenging those smears. He replied to none.

    Maybe Mr. Derbyshire will notice your gold box, and we’ll be privileged to watch you hack away at each other.

  188. Realist says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Would it not be better if schools and their curricula were controlled at the very local level, if not by parents themselves running small private schools?

    The small private school is not practical for most. But I am against a national curricula. Perhaps a state curricula.

    Try telling the Moslems up in Dearbornistan that they can’t teach about Islam

    The Moslem problem in Dearborn as with the Somali problem in Minneapolis and others should never have been allowed to happen, but what is done, is done.

  189. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > you haven’t been an atheist??!

    You just caught on just now, after mein de-nein-nein-nein-nein-nein-nein-nein-nein-ing atheism 427 or so times? Are you completely mental? [in a comedic German accent]

    > the idea of Intelligent Design

    The Jew-worshipers are trying to insert the Jewgod Jewhovah from the Holy Hook. Jewhovah is a foreign deity, and has to go back to the middle-east and pound sand. Are you a nationalist, or some sort of goddam Sappy Globalist like L’Internationale Jewsus? Are you completely mental? [in a comedic Yiddish accent]

    > can’t be proven with science.

    Actually, it can. And is. I’ve already explained it. It’s even in the Declaration of Independence. Are you completely mental? [in an authentically recreated comedic Colonial accent this time]

  190. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Polemos

    I’m not biting the bait he’s dangling, but he’s being Platonic, parroting the Four Causes in Timaeus. I have about the same patience for Mulegino’s Platonic bullshit as Thomas Jefferson did.

    “Having more leisure there than here for reading, I amused myself with reading seriously Plato’s Republic. I am wrong however in calling it amusement, for it was the heaviest task-work I ever went through. I had occasionally before taken up some of his other works, but scarcely ever had patience to go through a whole dialogue. While wading thro’ the whimsies, the puerilities, and unintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down often to ask myself how it could have been that the world should have so long consented to give reputation to such nonsense as this? … Education is chiefly in the hands of persons who, from their profession, have an interest in the reputation and the dreams of Plato. They give the tone while at school, and few, in their after-years, have occasion to revise their college opinions. But fashion and authority apart, and bringing Plato to the test of reason, take from him his sophisms, futilities, and incomprehensibilities, and what remains? In truth, he is one of the race of genuine Sophists…”

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Monticello, July 5, 1814

    One might wonder how this further relates to Mulegino’s Platonic Christianity, and I will leave you to ponder with this: “The Euthanasia of Platonic Christianity: Thomas Jefferson, Plato, Religion and Human Freedom.” (San Jose State University, 1993)

  191. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    You’re still banging your atheism pot, even though evolution =/= atheism. You’ve got a one track mind. Could help you with getting your needle in another groove. Give it a shot. Better than this online masturbation of yours.

  192. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen

    LOL!!! Still no answer about your Negroid felon lovers. Actually, your answer is yes.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  193. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    We’ve known that DNA holds that information since 1953. You’re 56 years behind. Time to play a bit of catch-up.

    So science finally caught up to metaphysics in 1953, in the discovery of encoded or informed DNA, which is as far from being a random assembly of ” deoxyribonucleic acid material” as is the Cathedral at Chartes a mere heap of stones and mortar or JS Bach’s Art of the Fugue a bunch of ink dots on a piece of parchment. DNA is the material upon which the formal cause acts in the formation of life, it is not the life itself, or the form itself.

    • Replies: @anon
  194. MEH 0910 says:
    @Fred V. Reed

    Ask him what policy he favors with regard to the tens of million citizens of Latin-American citizenship.

    Citizens of Latin-American countries that are here in the US are not our fellow citizens, they are foreign nationals. They should be repatriated to their home countries.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  195. Logan says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Possibly the oddest thing about atheists and evolutionists is their insistence on pushing the evidence past the point where it works.

    There is very good evidence that life evolves. Which is why Darwin called his great work On the Origin of Species. But he didn’t try to push his evidence past where it led.

    Darwin didn’t know what the origin of life itself was, as opposed to its variation and differentiation. And we have very little more evidence about this today.

    Then the atheists/evolutionists take another, even less justified, step and assume that the evidence that life has evolved here on earth tells us something about the origin of the universe. That for some extremely odd and never defined reason the Big Bang Theory implies lack of intent.

    Whereas in fact the BBT is essentially a rephrasing of Genesis 1:1, just leaving out the cause of the creation event.

    There is no really scientific evidence for intelligent action causing the Big Bang, but then there also is none contradicting this theory.

    I think I can believe in the creation of the universe by an omnipotent deity and still believe that He chose to let it and its life evolve to see what happens.

    In fact, I think we can see randomness and variation in intelligence (free will), in life (evolution) and on the most minute scale of which we are aware (quantum mechanics.)

    God may have set up a Great Game and let it run to see what would happen. Or, if you prefer the Tolkien version, the Music of the Ainur.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @peterAUS
  196. Mulegino1 says:

    Why don’t you start making a case for your so called “evolution” or transformism instead of your weak attempts to discredit “creationists”?

    Can you show one example where one phenotype has turned into a totally different phenotype- such as flying squirrels turning into bats or dogs turning into marine mammals? How about an example of how symbiotic relationships arose as a result of mutations or natural selection? How about the emergence of beehives as a result of this? Did the genetic mutations of bees all of a sudden herald the bees into swarming together and making honey?

    • Replies: @anon
  197. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > a random assembly

    Nobody but you said it was random, because you deliberately want to misrepresent, a.k.a., tell a bald-faced lie.

    Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

    Creationist Claim CB940: Complex structures could not have arisen by chance.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html

    Care to stop lying, hmm?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  198. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan

    > atheists

    Your ilk just can’t stop smearing with falsehoods. Is lying just a reflexive habit with you now?

    For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either.

    Creationist Claim CA602. Evolution is atheistic.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

    > origin of life itself

    Wrong.

    Creationist Claim CB050: Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

    > I think I can believe in the creation of the universe by an omnipotent deity and still believe that He chose to let it and its life evolve to see what happens.

    See CA602 above. You’re imagining monsters under your bed that aren’t there. Evolution isn’t atheistic; you’re just pretending it is, apparently so you can bellyache.

    • Replies: @Logan
  199. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > Can you show one example….

    Yes. Listed below are, not just one, but several.

    New species have arisen in historical times. For example…

    Response to Creationist Claim CB910: No new species have been observed.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  200. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution

    So the theory of evolution “speaks”?

    What else does it do- sit up and beg for treats?

    The “theory of evolution” – as commonly understood- is a protean gaggle of nonsense which is so elastic and non-definable as to mean almost anything to anyone and adjusts accordingly.

    “Natural selection” is not a very etymologically faithful construct. Does “selection” imply a “selector”? Do you believe in Theistic evolution? Do you believe in directed panspermia? What conscious agent does the selecting?

    • Replies: @anon
  201. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    Your examples are awful as examples of transformism.

    A mosquito is a mosquito and will remain a mosquito despite generations of mutations. We are not talking about changes within phenotypes, but the emergence of entirely new phenotypes, such as a lizard from a fish, a bat from a flying squirrel or a turtle from a snail. There are no such things, nor have there ever been. Transformism is no more scientific than the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
    , @anonymous
  202. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    You asked for examples. I showed you examples. You then proceed to bellyache about the examples, claiming the origin of new species aren’t what defines evolution, because somehow evolution must fit you ridiculous made-up definition. You’re a “genuine Sophist,” as Jefferson defined your ilk. (see comment #191)

  203. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    You’ve been reduced to silly word games now. Are folks indicating that the Bible is a walking, talking, begging-for-treats dog when they say that “the Bible speaks of” some subject? Of course not. You’re an intellectual fraud, a “genuine Sophist,” as Thomas Jefferson identified your ilk in comment #191. I bet you’re not even embarrassed by your intellectual fraud.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  204. Mulegino1 says:

    You asked for examples. I showed you examples.

    Not quite. You showed examples of micro-evolution, which you claim is the same as macro-evolution. Are there members of the Bass family or species adapted more to shallow water than to deep water, and vice versa? Of course there are. But a bass will not grow wings or legs and become a canine or a crow now, will it? Bass remain Bass. Fish remain fish, no matter how controlled their breeding.

    Can you even articulate what you believe to be the origin of different phenotypes? (We are not talking about different species of mosquitoes, or the difference between Labradors and Chihuahuas). We are talking about reptiles to avians, canines to marine mammals, etc.

    You cannot even show me how such things could possibly occur, much less evidence that they did.

    Do you believe that Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens? Do you believe Lucy Afarensis to be the ancestor of Homer, or Dante, or Christ, or Shakespeare? Or has that now been corrected, as Piltdown Man was proven to be a fraud? For credulity, the most fanatical cult has nothing on the true believers in the Darwinian pseudo-religion.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anonymous
  205. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > a mosquito

    While you nitpick at words, your lack of understanding of evolution allows me to nitpick at your singular use of mosquito, not merely for the sake of nitpicking, but to enlighten your mind to a proper definition of evolution.

    A singular mosquito organism does not evolve.

    Populations evolve. Evolution is a change of allele frequency through time in a population. Evolution is defined for a population.

    Can you handle that subtly?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  206. peterAUS says:
    @Logan

    There is no really scientific evidence for intelligent action causing the Big Bang, but then there also is none contradicting this theory.

    I think I can believe in the creation of the universe by an omnipotent deity and still believe that He chose to let it and its life evolve to see what happens.

    God may have set up a Great Game and let it run to see what would happen. Or, if you prefer the Tolkien version, the Music of the Ainur.

    Pretty much.

    As for the last sentence it’s similar to A.C. Clarke’s paragraph from one of his books about “Alpha” God and “Omega” God.

    I guess we could agree, at this stage, on “may have set up” with emphasize on “may”. Or, in plain language “we don’t know, really”. Well, that’s at least what I think. Or believe. Whatever.

    What could be an interesting question is: can we know? Are we capable of knowing that?

    Hehe….seeing how capable we are on discussing the issue I have some doubts there.
    Hopefully I’ll be proven wrong.
    In time. Distant, I guess.

    • Replies: @Logan
  207. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    The Bible is not altered every year to fit, Procrustean like, the theory of transformism. The apostles of evolutionary or transformist theory are continually modifying their claims to fit the overall thesis of transformism and will never admit that it is bankrupt and without foundation.

    They went into the shadows when the results of Mendel’s experiments became known.

    They regrouped and, with the power of numbers and academic despotism attempted to ridicule their opponents. They rallied around Piltdown Man, and Peking Man, and Punctuated Equilibrium- every one of these scientific frauds.

    • Replies: @anon
  208. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    So you admit evolution happens! Baby steps! Baby steps!

    Small changes accumulate, and there are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred. Yours is false Creationist “Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented,” http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

    Plus, you had to tack on Creationist “Claim CA610: Evolution is a religion,” http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

    If you want to work through all the creationist claims, I’m here to help.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  209. @anon

    No Negroid lovers. There. Your answer about Asians is due.

    • Replies: @anon
  210. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    The Bible is not altered every year to fit, true, talking snake and talking ass fables remain, with no self-correction mechanism other than creative interpretation when the fables become too embarrassing. And now onto more Creationist Claims bingo! Are you sneaking over there to the Creationist Claims Index and peeking first?

    Creationist Claim CC001: Piltdown Man was a fraud…
    Response: Piltdown man was exposed by scientists….
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html

    Claim CC061: Peking Man
    Response: Boule emphasized that he was not dismissing Peking Man as a monkey.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC061.html

    Claim CC201.1: The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed ad hoc to explain away the embarrassing gaps in the fossil record.
    Response: The idea of phyletic gradualism, which is invoked to justify a lack of gaps, fails to fit the evidence of population biology.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201_1.html

  211. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    Small changes accumulate, and there are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

    You mean Eohippus and Clydsdales? That is micro-evolution at work, not transformism. Variation within species and types, not magical mutational leaps from one type to another. I assume that your interminable links include the experiment with drosophilia.

    The horse type will remain the horse type. The canine type will remain the canine type, and no amount of selective breeding will turn a sheep into a kangaroo or a bear into a seal or a baleen whale. Those were Darwin’s equivalent of “talking snakes and donkeys.” “Imagine a race of bears that lived by the seashore,” etc. Darwin extrapolated from finches’ beaks to the origin of different phenotypes and he has been proven wrong, as has his progeny.

    • Replies: @anon
  212. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    Populations evolve. Evolution is a change of allele frequency through time in a population. Evolution is defined for a population.

    Can you handle that subtly?

    There you go again, substituting time and the myth of infinite linear progress for God. It does not matter how much “time” is involved- even if it were Carl Sagan’s “billions and billions of years.” Organisms and organic processes are fixed within certain parameters and do not change qualitatively as part of an evolutionary sequence. A feathered snake is not the ancestor of a bird any more than a squid is the ancestor of a baleen whale.

    • Replies: @anon
  213. anonymous[334] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    canines to marine mammals

    Marine mammals do not originate from canines….

    Do you believe that Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens? 

    Question: Where is it that you suppose Homo Sapiens came from, if not from the birth canal of living organisms?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  214. anonymous[334] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    lizard from a fish, a bat from a flying squirrel or a turtle from a snail.

    Turtles from snails? Seriously?.. Is it too much to ask to have even a tiny bit of genuine curiosity of the topic you are talking so much about?

    No one can show you 10s and 100s of millions of years of changes in action, if that is what you are asking for. It is impossible. Knowing that, what would consider as proof of the plausibility of evolution within the data available to us? In other words, what would you expect to see if evolution is true (or possibly true)? Make a prediction. You have the ability to falsify evolutionary theory right here and now.

    We know that various species and genera have existed and gone extinct throughout geological history. What explains the emergence of new groups, if not common descent. Where else could they come from? I am asking because I am genuinely curious.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  215. anon[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    There you go again, completely misrepresenting evolution.

    One of the more common misconceptions, with a history long before Darwin, is that evolution is progressive…

    Is There Progress and Direction in Evolution?
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html

    > Organisms and organic processes are fixed…

    You’re repeating yourself, so I will too.

    …Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago….

    Creationist Claim CB910: No new species have been observed.
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

  216. anon[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > micro-evolution at work

    Now you’re back to admitting evolution works. Sorta. Having a form of evolution, but denying the power thereof. 🙂 So you’re just repeating Creationist Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

  217. anon[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  218. @anon

    You most definitely are an Asian poontanger.

    • Replies: @anon
  219. Mulegino1 says:
    @anonymous

    Marine mammals do not originate from canines….

    Thank you for your candid admission. Of course they don’t. Time is not a creative matrix but a degenerative one. Organisms do not undergo substantial or essential changes, only accidental ones. Dogs will always be dogs, bats will always be bats, as trilobites were always trilobites. There is no physical evidence for transformism because it did not occur.

    Question: Where is it that you suppose Homo Sapiens came from, if not from the birth canal of living organisms?

    I assume you are referring to the first man and first woman, who did not come from the birth canal of a lower primate.

    Can you imagine the absurdity: Cheetah says to Mighty Joe Young- “Joe, it’s a human and a human.”

    There is no path from Lucy Afarensis to Shakespeare or JS Bach. A million years, or even a billion years cannot account for the qualitative difference between the lower so called “hominids” and a Socrates or a Vitruvius.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anonymous
  220. Mulegino1 says:
    @anonymous

    What explains the emergence of new groups, if not common descent. Where else could they come from? I am asking because I am genuinely curious.

    Genetic mutations and natural selection certainly do not explain the emergence of “new groups.” Show me an ordered process of complete change of an organism from, say, a lizard to a fish or a fish to a lizard, a feathered reptile to a bird or a lower primate to a man.

    There have been fish with feet and lizards who swim, but that is not what is at issue. There is no evidence that this came about because of genetic mutation or random natural selection. Their organic constitutions are fixed by their forms or souls. Or was there a point in which nature said, “Whoa! Enough is enough!”?

    • Replies: @anon
  221. Mulegino1 says:

    I call it “micro-evolution” because it is etymologically faithful to the word “evolution” which is the unfolding of the possible variations within a species or type. There is a wonderful diversity within, say, the canine group, but no group of littoral canines ever became marine mammals- not even after “millions and millions” of years.

    Or, as Darwin put it:

    I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.1

    • Replies: @anon
  222. anon[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen

    You’re the one spending all your time trying to deny all your Negro lovers. And with an Asian name like Attila, the question for you becomes, why did a brown slut like you go black instead of white? Didn’t like you own Asian people?

  223. anon[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > Thank you for your candid admission.

    It’s not an “admission,” its just identifying your own maniacally absurd misrepresentation of evolution. Playing word games for you might be fun, but it only shows how desperate your position is.

    > the first man and first woman

    Again, you demonstrate your own intellectual retardation. There never was a single breeding pair of whites. Populations, not individuals, evolve. you’ve been told this before. You’re either too stupid to grasp it, or too intellectually dishonest to stop your misrepresentations.

    > There is no path

    Yet another refuted Creationist Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  224. anon[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    You call it evolution, because it’s evolution. Putting a time-scale in front doesn’t change the fact that its evolution.

    And then you trot out the ol’ “CC216.1. There are gaps between land mammals and whales.” http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

    I think you’re going to try to hit them all.

  225. anon[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > Genetic mutations and natural selection certainly do not explain

    Actually, they do.

    > Show me

    LOL Horse. Water. Drink.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Mulegino1
  226. anonymous[334] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    who did not come from the birth canal of a lower primate.

    The question is where did they come from, not where didn’t they come from.. It is a very simple question. Yet you choose to skirt around it in typical con man fashion, instead of giving a head-on answer. You could invoke bible magic if you want to, or say ‘I don’t know’. At least then you would be honest, and I would know where you (and perhaps other creationists) stand. But you are only into playing phony con games, I guess.

    Dogs will always be dogs, bats will always be bats, as trilobites were always trilobites.

    Trilobites weren’t always trilobites; they went extinct, remember? Bats did not exist 60 million years ago. Dogs didn’t exist 30,000 years ago. Their ancestors were wolves…

    It these animals did not always exist, then it follows that they must originate from somewhere. Where did they come from? You do not have an answer for this, but strangely, you also display no curiousity for their origins.

    Genetic mutations and natural selection certainly do not explain the emergence of “new groups.”

    Again, I know that this is your position, but that was not the question. You have a problem answering exceedingly simple questions, perhaps intentionally.

    random natural selection

    Wtf is “random natural selection”?

    Show me an ordered process of complete change of an organism from, say, a lizard to a fish or a fish to a lizard, a feathered reptile to a bird or a lower primate to a man.

    No. I am beginning to think that you are a moron or a troll. As if it weren’t already self-explanatory, I literally just explained why I cannot show you this:

    No one can show you 10s and 100s of millions of years of changes in action, if that is what you are asking for. It is impossible.

    I ask for a reasonable criterion by which we could judge the falsifiability of evolutionary theory within the framework of existing data. You respond by asking me to show you a fish turning into a lizard….

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Mulegino1
  227. anonymous[334] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    No offense, but are you a spambot or what? Is it possible for you to counter creationist positions without having to consult that talk origins site? Your comments account for like half of this entire thread, and many of them are just plain childish…

    • Replies: @anon
  228. dfordoom says: • Website
    @peterAUS

    The zeal, the language, the attitude.

    It used to be that atheists were people who disbelieved in God. That’s no longer the case. These days atheists are people who hate God.

    For many atheists evolution is inseparable from atheism. They figure that if evolution is true then that means that the God they hate so much can’t exist. That explains the zeal and the anger.

    For atheists evolution is merely a weapon with which to attack religion.

    Of course it’s possible that the main motivation for atheism always was hatred of God rather than disbelief.

    Whether God exists or not doesn’t matter. Atheists still hate Him either way.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @anon
  229. peterAUS says:
    @dfordoom

    That’s an interesting point. Can’t say I disagree.

    Now, as for evolution itself, as the handle Logan said:

    I think I can believe in the creation of the universe by an omnipotent deity and still believe that He chose to let it and its life evolve to see what happens.

    He could’ve created the Universe and some advanced civilization could’ve created life on Earth (as, say, in “Prometheus”). Or, as in “2001” some advance civilization could’ve created us.
    There are plenty of possibilities there that don’t mutually exclude omnipotent God (as we are capable of understanding) and evolution.

    I guess a little humility would help in trying to unravel the Mystery.
    Now, humility and “progressives”, atheists in particular, that’s funny. Hysterics fit much better there.

    • Replies: @anon
  230. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    > Genetic mutations and natural selection certainly do not explain

    Actually, they do.

    > Show me

    LOL Horse. Water. Drink.

    Actually they don’t. Mutations are almost always harmful and rarely conducive to improving a type.

    Generations of cross breeding of livestock based upon variations will not lead to a new species, but it will remain the same species and revert to type.

    The experiment with the drosophilia involved thousands of generations of radiated fruit flies, with many mutations (always harmful or a deformation).

    • Replies: @anon
  231. Mulegino1 says:
    @anonymous

    I ask for a reasonable criterion by which we could judge the falsifiability of evolutionary theory within the framework of existing data. You respond by asking me to show you a fish turning into a lizard….

    Why don’t you provide your own definition and explain how it is true, without going to your little anodyne website for links. You cannot do this and you know it. Life did not arise from chance, or as a mere result of fortuitous environmental conditions in some primordial soup. The odds against even the most primitive life arising by chance are astronomical. (Insert link here: Creationists falsely claim…)

    “Evolutionary theory” is based upon a false world view involving the myths of unending linear progress and materialism. T.H. Huxley and Herbert Spencer have more to do with evolutionary philosophy and the ruling out of creation as any

    The history of marcoevolutionary theory is replete with absurdities, like Darwin’s bathybius, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, and Gould’s hopeful monsters. Yet in your view, it is only creationists who are superstitious.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anonymous
  232. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    There never was a single breeding pair of whites. Populations, not individuals, evolve. you’ve been told this before. You’re either too stupid to grasp it, or too intellectually dishonest to stop your misrepresentations.

    I may have been told this before, but I am under no compulsion- intellectual, philosophical or moral- to defer to blockheads like you. You cannot even think for yourself, but need to run to your little website for comfort.

    There are plenty of different theories regarding the origins of life: the Vedas, the pre-Socratics, the ancient creation myths, the Koran, the Bible, directed panspermia, etc. You set up a crude and anthropomorphic Biblical straw man and attempt to knock it down using what is at its most fundamental level a grossly materialist and unfalsifiable theory of origins, invoking “mutations”, “populations”, “millions and millions of years” and yet you cannot show one instance of an orderly descent with modification from one type to an entirely different type.

    • Replies: @anon
  233. Mulegino1 says:
    @anonymous

    Wtf is “random natural selection”?

    Are you implying that natural selection is a directed process, or perhaps, an intelligently designed one?

    Who or what is doing the selection if it is not random-within the environmental parameters? Does mother nature have a selection board or an adaptability court of appeals?

    How is “natural selection” not a truism?

    • Replies: @anon
  234. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    Evolution is neither “progressive” nor “athiest.” I’m neither “progressive” nor an “atheist.” I guess a little intelligence would help in trying to unravel the Mystery. Imbecility fits you much better.

  235. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    > That explains the zeal and the anger.

    Look at you psychologically project again! What got your panties in a wad,anyway? Not a single person here is an atheist, and yet you bang on the atheist pot like an IQ 40 retard on the short bus, making yourself look like a fool, all because of your zeal and anger.

  236. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Is it possible for somebody here to post something about evolution that isn’t easily debunked?

    > many of them are just plain childish…

    More like creationists I would ever be.

    “Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” (Matthew 11:25) “Except ye be converted, and become as little children.” (Matthew 18:13)

    Not to be offensive or anything.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  237. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > Mutations are almost always harmful

    Wrong.

    Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

    Creationist Claim CB101:Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

    > radiated fruit flies

    Wrong again. You seem bound and determined to run through every single false Creationist Claim.

    Fruit flies do not remain the same species of fruit flies. Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of contrasting microenvironments within a canyon (Korol et al. 2000). We would not expect to see much greater divergence in historical times.

    Creationist Claim CB910.1: Fruit flies have been mutated and bred in laboratories for generations, but they are still fruit flies.
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  238. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > Life did not arise from chance

    No evolutionist ever said it did. But like a retard banging pots, you keep saying the same bullshit lie over and over and over and over and over again. You’re more stupid than a cretin.

    Claim CB940: Complex structures could not have arisen by chance.
    Response: Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance.
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html

    Repeating your lies over and over and over again don’t make them true, Mulegino.

  239. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > How is “natural selection” not a truism?

    We’ve been here before. Got short term memory loss?

    Claim CA500: Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” is tautologous (i.e., uses circular reasoning)
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

    You never say anything that isn’t already debunked at the Creationist Claim Index.

    Got anything original?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  240. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    Of course you’re not under compulsion to accept reality. You’re an imbecile for suggesting that an exchange of words in a comment section is using physical or other force to cause something to be done. You can believe all the fairy tales you want to.

    > need to run to your little website

    I’m pretty sure that you’re the one running to it, because you haven’t said anything original, ever, that isn’t already addressed there.

    Do you have anything original that isn’t already debunked there?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  241. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    Ah, “debunked.” You haven’t debunked anything, nor have your links to the web page.

    Anyone who has to keep providing links (but cannot properly articulate or summarize their content) is an idiot.

    Creationist Claim Index, i.e., your own resort to naturalist fideism.

    • Replies: @anon
  242. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    Of course you’re not under compulsion to accept reality. You’re an imbecile for suggesting that an exchange of words in a comment section is using physical or other force to cause something to be done. You can believe all the fairy tales you want to.

    You do believe in fairy tales, only your fairy tales last for millions of years and contribute nothing meaningful to any debate- only links which you can neither articulate or summarize. That makes you the imbecile.

    The evidence points overwhelmingly to the sudden appearance of species and types. This is true whether it refers to protozoa, the Pre-Cambrian explosion- marine mammals- the latest is the ridiculous proposition that baleen whales are descended from the hippopotamus- now that is a real fairy tale.

    • Replies: @anon
  243. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually thought.

    Read carefully, and be careful when you paste.

    So most mutations that have significant effect are harmful.

    One wonders what types those fruit flies evolved into. California Condors, butterflies or bats? Maybe they went to the beach and became flying fish. Sorry, but those fruit flies remained fruit flies. And this was after hundreds of generations of being artificially irradiated.

    • Replies: @anon
  244. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    I didn’t think you could conjure any original thoughts of your own, all you do is parrot false Creationist Claims, and all I do is pop over to the index and identify your false Creationist Claims.

    Plus, you don’t know God, which is really sad, you filthy, ungodly reprobate. Deus sive Natura.

    “Everything is interwoven, and the web is holy.” -Marcus Aurelius

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  245. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > The evidence points overwhelmingly to the sudden appearance of species and types.

    The evidence points overwhelmingly to the sudden impact of the Creationist Claim Index on your fairy tales.

    Creationist Claim CC220: Arthropods arose suddenly in the fossil record
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220.html

    Creationist Claim CC300: Complex life forms appear suddenly.
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

    Creationist Claim CC331: Sudden Deposition.
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html

    Still, you say nothing original. You just parrot tired, old, worn-out lies.

  246. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    You read carefully, dipshit. You misrepresented what science says, I corrected you. Then, once you got corrected, you try to play word games saying you were right all along, and then you go immediately to misrepresenting it again. No, most mutations are not harmful, they’re neutral.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Mulegino1
  247. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:

    These creationists are as wild-eyed crazy as Nancy Pelosi. No amount of investigation will satisfy them, because they can’t abide the conclusions of the scientific reports.

  248. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    No, most mutations are not harmful, they’re neutral.

    Yes, but according to your link, most mutations that have a significant effect are harmful, not neutral.

    You ought to peruse your linked items more thoroughly.

    • Replies: @anon
  249. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    I am not “parroting” creationist claims- you are.

    Plus, you don’t know God, which is really sad, you filthy, ungodly reprobate. Deus sive Natura.

    Ungodly reprobate? I can think of ungodly reprobates in Hollywood, on Wall St. and in the entertainment industry and political classes, but seriously,

    creationists

    as reprobates? It is you who need to adjust the priorities of your moral theology a bit.

    • Replies: @anon
  250. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    You misrepresented what science says, I corrected you.

    In the first place, scientists do not speak with one voice.

    Natural science is, fundamentally, a method, not a program or an ideology, and as such, does not speak in a univocal sense. It does not speak at all, as a matter of fact.

    There are excellent reasons to doubt the theory of evolution and they are not all of creationist provenance.

    • Replies: @anon
  251. anonymous[334] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    Why don’t you provide your own definition and explain how it is true

    You are just avoiding my simple question once again with this BS.

    What would you like defined? Evolution? It is the theory that life has diversified from a common ancestor through means of natural selection (among other processes) acting on variation in heritable traits. I will not explain how evolution is true because that has never been my position. My position is that evolution is the model describing the variation of species that best suits reality, at least for the time being. This has always been my position for decades. Its closest competition is magic and aliens, neither of which explains anything.

    And fwiw, how life arose does not fall within evolutionary theory.

    Who or what is doing the selection if it is not random

    Selection pressures: Climate, biomes, habitats, predators, food availability, disease, etc.

    Yet in your view, it is only creationists who are superstitious.

    I don’t recall making any comment about creationists or superstitious people, although you’re welcome to point out where I did. Why is it so difficult for you to address anything I actually said? All I did was ask you a couple of simple questions, one being about what your own theory is for the origin of species. I have answered all of your stupid questions, yet you STILL haven’t answered either of my two questions. That is telling.

  252. anonymous[334] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Is it possible for somebody here to post something about evolution that isn’t easily debunked?

    Then debunk it, faggot. You are just another anti-Christian hipster phony.

    • Replies: @anon
  253. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    Third time is a charm, you finally got it correct, without trying to misrepresent the facts. Most mutations are benign, of those few mutations that are significant, most are harmful. So what’s your point now?

  254. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Yes, I’m anti-Jew-worship, pro-nationalist GNON. Why should you be worshiping a Jewish Rabbi whose official Seat is in a foreign country half way around the world? And I’m afraid the sexual thing is your own psychological projection, since you’re the one who desires to be a pederastic boy-Bride of a Jewish Rabbi who banned all straight sex in his gaudy Jewheaven. I wouldn’t want to consummate that marriage, faggot. Get angry and tell me I’m going to mythical underworld of Loki’s daughter Hell, where is beer, bratwurst, and blonde buxom babes for all Vikings. 🙂

    • Replies: @anonymous
  255. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    You’re a hoot! I say “what science says,” and you have to pontificate on what everybody already knows. what’s your middle name, Mr. Obvious? Still, science articles get published using the same sort of language of mine you pettily nitpicked, e.g.:

    Repressed memory or dissociative amnesia: What the science says
    AW Scheflin, D Brown – The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 1996 – journals.sagepub.com

    Maybe you can express your petty nitpicking concerns to journals.sagepub.com. Let me know how it goes.

    > There are excellent reasons to doubt the theory of evolution

    Indeed, about as much good reason for you to doubt the theory of gravity.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  256. anon[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    Bible-banging creationists are Jew-worshipers who hate and have forsaken their own blood and soil for a Jewish Rabbi’s “hundredfold” bribe. When they forsake the Globalist Rabbi, and embrace their own blood and soil again, then they can be forgiven of their perfidious betrayal.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  257. Logan says:
    @anon

    I’m not entirely sure what you’re complaining about.

    I agree that belief in evolution as the origin of species does not require a belief in atheism. That was precisely my point.

    But if you think there aren’t a LOT of people who do believe that the fact of evolution disproves the existence of God, you haven’t been paying much attention. It is in fact the default position for WEIRD people around the world.

    Western, educated, and from industrialized, rich, and democratic countries. Hat tip to Johathan Haidt. This is of course our new global ruling class and tribe.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anonymous
  258. Logan says:
    @peterAUS

    Fair enough.

    To my mind, absolute belief that God, in the standard western sense, does not and cannot exist is even less logical than an absolute belief that He does.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @peterAUS
  259. anon[596] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan

    > a LOT of people who do believe that the fact of evolution disproves the existence of God

    A LOT of Christians believe that! Why blame atheists and “WEIRD” people for what Christians believe? Or are you saying Christians are the “WEIRD” people? You’re WEIRD.

  260. anon[596] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan

    By what logic do you come to that conclusion? Is your statement any different than this nearly identical statement?

    “To my mind, absolute belief that the Biblical first man Adam, in the standard western sense, did not and cannot exist is even less logical than an absolute belief that he did.”

    Problem for believers is that Adam most definitely did not exist, as geneticists have proven. An excerpt of how they proved that past the More button:

    [MORE]

    The facts first. Sheehan et al., building on earlier work by Li and Durbin (references in margin), calculated that the minimum population size associated with the worldwide expansion of humans out of Africa roughly 100,000 years ago was 2,250 individuals, while the population that remained in Africa was no smaller than about 10,000 individuals. For population geneticists, this is the “effective population size,” invariably smaller than the census size, so these are minimum estimates, and ones derived from conservative assumptions. The population sizes are estimated by back-calculating (based on reasonable estimates of mutation rates and other genetic parameters) how small an ancestral population could be and still give rise to the observed level and structure of genetic variation in our species.

    Note: 2,500 is larger than two.

    This means, of course, that Adam and Eve couldn’t have been the literal ancestors of all humanity. Normally, such a scientific trashing of scripture could be absorbed, at least by liberal theologians. They’d just reinterpret Adam and Eve as metaphors. But that causes big trouble on two counts…

    Jerry Coyne (2013) Scientists Try to Reconcile Adam and Eve Story, Whiff. Again. New Republic.
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115759/adam-eve-theologians-try-reconcile-science-and-fail

  261. anon[323] • Disclaimer says:

    I think we cured any notion of nostalgia for Creationists in this thread. Fact is, they’re no different than the Marxists. Both are fanatical mass movements. Both fanatical mass movements are discussed in detail by Eric Hoffer in his text The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements (Harper, 1951.)

  262. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    Indeed, about as much good reason for you to doubt the theory of gravity

    It’s not the theory of gravity it is the law of gravity.

    • Replies: @anon
  263. Mulegino1 says:
    @anon

    Bible-banging creationists are Jew-worshipers who hate and have forsaken their own blood and soil for a Jewish Rabbi’s “hundredfold” bribe.

    Very true, many Christian Zionists worship the Jewish collective and Israel, and have indeed forsaken their own blood, soil- and their traditional Christian heritage- for a Jewish Rabbi’s hundredfold bribe.

    Contemporary Judaism is a cult whose primary identity is the rejection of Christ and the concurrence in His murder. It actually antedates Christianity and the completion of the New Testament by centuries, since its authoritative sacred text, the Talmud, was not completed and ratified until centuries after the New Testament and the institution of the Christian Church.

    Also, the great false and Satanic narrative of the Twentieth Century is the Holohoax and the false premise that the Second World War was fought for the “liberation” of Europe when in fact it was entirely about the destruction of Germany and the Europe of nations for the cause of world Zionism and financial hegemony.

  264. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mulegino1

    It actually antedates Christianity

    It should have read, postdates Christianity and the Jewish Rabbi (rather Jewish rabbis) in question have no affinity with Christ, but are completely opposed to Him.

    The most sacred text (or texts) of Judaism is the Talmud, which is the sacralization of the ethnocentric psychopathy which forms the core of Jewish identity.

  265. @Mulegino1

    This is of contemporary and historical importance, it being no exaggeration to say the false narrative is Satanic:

    Also, the great false and Satanic narrative of the Twentieth Century is the Holohoax and the false premise that the Second World War was fought for the “liberation” of Europe when in fact it was entirely about the destruction of Germany and the Europe of nations for the cause of world Zionism and financial hegemony.

    But this is timeless, vitally necessary truth for the individual and humanity in total:

    Contemporary Judaism is a cult whose primary identity is the rejection of Christ and the concurrence in His murder. It actually antedates Christianity and the completion of the New Testament by centuries, since its authoritative sacred text, the Talmud, was not completed and ratified until centuries after the New Testament and the institution of the Christian Church.

    • Replies: @anon
  266. anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    Wrong, moron. But thanks for letting us know you haven’t the slightest clue what “theory” means. If you’re an adult and saying horseshit like that, you truly are retarded intellectually.

    This satirical look at “only a theory” disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.

    All physics textbook should include this warning label:

    This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

    The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a fact, when in fact it is not even a good theory.

    First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal”….

    Gravity: It’s Only a Theory
    National Center for Science Education
    https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory

  267. anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1

    > many Christian Zionists

    They’re all Zionists, as Zion is mentioned multiple times in the Jew Testament.

    > whose primary identity is the rejection of Christ

    That’s risible. Show us. Show us a Jew whose primary definition is that. There isn’t one. You’re just lying out your ass, Jew-worshiper.

    > It actually antedates Christianity

    Oh really? LOL! Odd that the Jew Testament states specifically you can’t get saved without the Jews.

    “Salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22)

  268. anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farrakhan.DDuke.AliceWalker.AllAgree

    > narrative is Satanic

    Hi Church Lady!

    Or are you just Dana Carvey in a skirt being funny?

  269. anonymous[334] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan

    But if you think there aren’t a LOT of people who do believe that the fact of evolution disproves the existence of God, you haven’t been paying much attention. It is in fact the default position for WEIRD people around the world.

    I think a large part of this has been the reactions of so many Christians, especially Protestants in America, to any evidence which suggests species may share a common ancestor. They themselves are the ones who have cemented in the minds of many the notion that Christian belief is mutually incompatible with evolution. People look at the gradual anatomical changes that have occured over the last million years of hominin history and they wonder if the idea that homo sapiens may have been a part of this history is not really all that outlandish. Then there are the strict bible literalists who preach that the world is 6,000 years old, people rode triceratops, Noah had millions of species on a boat, etc. Most people will not be satisfied with such explainations, especially since they originate from ancient middle easterners who are known to have quite the knack for inventing silly religious superstitions (e.g. Koran..).

    Then there is the god that creates diseases that inflict horrible deaths in young children, as well parasites, tapeworms, mosquitoes, etc. Supposedly, from time to time, this god also purposefully engineers awful genetic disorders into the genome. All of these things considered, Christians are then forcing people to choose between the two, and the results are as expected.. I think that this is unfortunate.

    I’m neither a Christian, nor a materialist, but I do like Christianity (along with many other religions) and wish to see Whites continue to maintain their traditional religion and culture into the future, but I am mostly indifferent to its fate. I do not yet know if Christian culture in America and Europe is flexible and strong enough to continue its legacy into the future, but I do prefer it over the nihilistic “new atheism” for hipsters.

  270. anonymous[875] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Lol… Nice tangent.

    If anything I’ve said about evolution is so “easily debunked”, then you are welcome to point it out to me instead of playing passive-aggressive word games.

    • Replies: @anon
  271. peterAUS says:
    @Logan

    To my mind, absolute belief that God, in the standard western sense, does not and cannot exist is even less logical than an absolute belief that He does.

    Actually, I do agree there, just, probably for a different reason. Here it is: logic/modern science can’t, IMHO, explain a lot of things. It’s quite possible there is “something” out there.
    It is also possible that logic, science …whatever we can think of/about can’t really “‘get” that. As a cockroach can’t get nuclear physics and/or admire classical music.

    Some humans, exceptional people can, I guess, get, sometimes, a minuscule glimpse of…that…whatever that “that” is.
    The rest of us just can’t.

    And…hehe…that goes directly against “progs/atheists” self-respect. No wonder the reactions are….passionate.

    • Replies: @anon
  272. anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    > “easily debunked”

    Couldn’t do it, huh? Or even try. Figures.

  273. anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @peterAUS

    Can’t much talk evolution or creationism, but you got yourself a raging hard-on against passion! Stay away from church on easter, ok? You’d obsessively rant for a year after that.…hehe…

  274. Feryl says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Really, the general rule throughout American history is that the further South and further West you go, the flakier people get (although Texans are a positive outlier). While the Western US tends to be less religious, just the same all kinds of weirdo cults/charismatic gurus have always been attracted to the region. During this country’s development, it often seemed like the “frontier” of the West (which at one point was Illinois) and South (which at one point was Tennessee) tended to be more extreme and anti-social than the older parts back East (so Ohio was more “civilized” than Indiana, and Virginia was more civilized than Alabama).

    Florida, Hawaii, Alaska, and the interior West are the newest parts of America, and sure enough, these regions seem to produce a lot of goofballs. But even the Midwest and South are goofier compared to the Northeast.

    • Replies: @anon
  275. anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Feryl

    Shakers (New York) Quakers (Boston) Mormons (New York) Jehovah’s Witnesses (New York) Baptists (Providence) First Great Awakening (New England)

    -_-

  276. @Mulegino1

    Truth worth clarifying:

    The most sacred text (or texts) of Judaism is the Talmud, which is the sacralization of the ethnocentric psychopathy which forms the core of Jewish identity.

    Ethnic Jews are psychopathic including having extreme ethnocentrism beyond that of any other ethnicity which manifests in seeing the in-group as fellow gods and hating the out-group as worthy only of being exploited, enslaved and destroyed.

    Ethnic Jews wrote the Talmud to reflect all this and specifically their vile hatred of Jesus against whom they are driven to constant rebellion because He has brought salvation to all who obey His teachings instead of limiting salvation to ethnic Jews.

    Jews hate Jesus for including non-Jews whom they hate which is why they sought from the onset of his public ministry to kill him, Luke 4:20-29.

    • Replies: @anon
  277. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farrakhan.DDuke.AliceWalker.AllAgree

    > Ethnic Jews are psychopathic including having extreme ethnocentrism

    True, like when Rabbi Jewsus called the Gentile woman a bitch, told her he came “only” for Jews, and told her she had to beg for crumbs from the Jewish Master’s table. (Matthew 15.21-28)

    > Jews hate Jesus

    Who cares, if you’re not a Jew? Jews have conflicts all the time. That is no reason for European to take a side, any more than one must take a side when Communists have conflict. Stalin killed Trotsky. Who cares? Pick a side? Totally unnecessary.

    Of course, you imagine it is necessary to choose sides in Jewish conflicts, since you’ve fallen for the Jewish Rabbi’s scam that “Salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22) What sort of goddam moron believes that Jewish horseshit?

  278. My very strong preference is that youngsters in our schools and colleges be taught true facts about nature, and about human nature.

    If that’s too much to ask, and we’re going to teach the kids hogwash, I’d rather it was the harmless, nutty American hogwash of Creationism than the evil, poisonous, equally anti-science nation-breaking hogwash of Cultural Marxism.

    Well said!

    • Replies: @anon
  279. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    But the nutty American hogwash of Creationism is anything but harmless.

    Christian academia uncritically tuned to the rigged history of the Jews…

    The Holy Hook: Yahweh’s Trojan Horse into the Gentile City
    http://www.unz.com/article/the-holy-hook/

  280. nopsi says:
    @anon

    Poor exegesis. Ecclesiastes 9:11 does not prove chance.

    By definition a decision is an intentional and rational act. Therefore the logical coherence of Ecc., 9:11 is supported by the fact that it is not arguing theoretical cosmological and or biological origins due to random chance, but rather the anecdotal unpredictability of the human condition.

    • Replies: @anon
  281. anon[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @nopsi

    > Ecclesiastes 9:11 does not prove chance.

    Never said it proved anything. I simply quoted it. Talk about poor exegesis!

    > By definition a decision is an intentional and rational act.

    Never heard of the Libet Experiment?

    > is not arguing

    Here comes the Explainer!

    > anecdotal

    Doesn’t sound very inspired.

    > unpredictability of the human condition.

    So he’s saying there is no magical Creator in control. A very Epicurean outlook from a very Epicurean book. 🙂

  282. @anon

    Matthew 15:28:

    Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

    John 4:23, 24:

    But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him.

    God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.”

    • Replies: @anon
  283. anon[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farrakhan.DDuke.AliceWalker.AllAgree

    Embarrassed to quote the Matthew 15 verses before v. 28? Thought so.

    Embarrassed to quote the John 4 verse before 23? Yep.

    This is how you Jew-worshipers manage. You quote only the stuff you like, and hope that magically erases the meaning of the embarrassing passages.

  284. The quoted verses show Jesus bringing salvation to all who follow Him and only to those who follow Him.

    Non-Jews attain salvation if they follow Jesus as do Jews who follow Jesus, but Jews who do not follow Jesus are damned. Simply being Jew does not save them as they usually make the mistake of thinking.

    Beyond that only one thing is left to be said.

    Hush, Juden.

    • Replies: @anon
  285. MBlanc46 says:

    This argument has played a significant role in the decline of the West. Certainly, all civilizations need an ideational framework that gives the lives and actions of its members value and meaning. Why should that have anything to do with whether or how ants and wasps are related? The British had the Church of England: the English ruling class at prayer. Granted, that was a bit harder to pull off in the US. We did seem to be close in the years after WWII. Then it all came apart.

  286. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Farrakhan.DDuke.AliceWalker.AllAgree

    > Non-Jews attain salvation

    Spoken like a low-intelligence Wannabee-Jew. “For it is we who are the Circumcision.” (Philippians 3:3) Who wants to identify as genital mutilators to be saved, other than desperate dumbfucks like you?

    > Hush, Juden.

    I’m not Juden like the Jewsus you worship. You Jew-worshipers are all liars. But it’s hilarious when you Jew-worshipers think that the worst insult is to call me what you worship. Don’t forget, Jewsus the Jewish Rabbi was quite a popular Rabbi in the Synagogues.

    “He [Jewsus] taught regularly in their Synagogues and was praised by everyone.” Luke 4:15

    Creationism is toxic to white culture, because Creationists are Jew-worshipers .

  287. MEH 0910 says:

    Ann Coulter likewise, last time I checked.

    Apparently still so. Oh well, nobody’s perfect.

    • Replies: @anon
  288. anon[382] • Disclaimer says:
    @MEH 0910

    No surprise (((David Gelernter))) attacks the White Man’s Science, and Jew-worshiper Ann Coulter joins in.

  289. This is a very good piece. I’m quoting a large chunk of it.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS