Child abuse indeed

| 322 Comments

Georgia Purdom is a functionary–a “scientist”–at Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis. She has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from the Ohio State University and was for a time on the faculty at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University in Ohio. (Interestingly, she left MVNU after 6 years, about the time when tenure decisions are made in most institutions. I know nothing specific, but it’s always fun to speculate.) In a recent blog post commenting on the Freshwater affair she wrote this:

I teach Sunday school for first through third grade, and over the next few weeks we’ll be discussing dinosaurs, radiometric dating methods, natural selection, and mutations. I teach them that what they learn in public school in regard to historical science concerning these ideas is not the truth.

That’s child abuse of a very high order, worse even than Freshwater’s because the children are so much younger. Those kids are screwed.

322 Comments

She is also interested in studying the formation of stromatolites, animal speciation after the Flood, and the Intelligent Design Movement.

My, what an idea.

Radiometric dating for 1st through 3rd graders! WTF

I don’t think I’d call it child abuse, but I do feel that teaching fraud and bigotry to children, especially by a professional con artist who happens to have a Ph.D, is a scandal of Biblical proportions. Pun intended.

Look at this nonsense:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/out[…]-purdom/bio/

Dr. Purdom’s scientific research focuses on the roles of natural selection and mutation in microbial populations. She seeks to understand the original, created, “very good” roles of bacteria in the pre-Fall world and genetic mechanisms that have led to their adaptations and pathogenicity in a post-Fall world.

First, it must be noted that Creationists accept evolution, but only by the limitations of the Bible. That’s not science. Science has no dogmas and nothing should limit what scientists can ask about and conclude based on the evidence alone.

Second, if the Fall of man changed even the functions of bacteria, then that shows how powerful man’s sin is and how weak God the Creator must be. Why bother worshipping a God like that?

Dr. Purdom is a fraud and/or an idiot, and her Ph.D isn’t worth spit.

This is sad. People are in a position of trust and they abuse it. Instead of teaching our children to think for themselves. And as a microbiologist I find her “research” offensive.

That’s child abuse of a very high order, worse even than Freshwater’s because the children are so much younger. Those kids are screwed.

And this is distinguished from the exact same thing being done by parents across the country, uh, how, exactly? Where do you think creationists come from? That particular pathology is pretty well set up by the time a Freshwater gets to the victims.

And really, do you know any sane parents who would entrust their children to someone like this, even in Sunday School? At least, more than enough Sundays to realize the damage being done? Purdom is nothing more than the mechanism parents are using to cripple their children.

(And I note with some interest that my new governor does not consider me his brother, in a context where I am clearly considered an inferior. Ah well, it’s no wonder that the State Motto of Alabama is “thank god for Mississippi”, lest Alabama rank worst in everything. The irony of that motto is quite delicious.)

Do we really want our children to walk away from their science classrooms thinking that it is wrong to question the scientific establishment and just accept whatever the scientific experts say? Absolutely not!

Good observational/operational science is based on the principles of questioning and attempting to falsify scientific findings.

Where would we be today in our understanding and treatment of disease if we had just accepted from the scientists of the past that disease was caused by bad air or “vapors”?

We needed scientists like Louis Pasteur to question and falsify these ideas.

–Dr. Georgia Purdom

Hmm. Sounds like science education, not child abuse.

But no matter. Go ahead and file a lawsuit for child abuse, RBH.

Betcha won’t win. At all. Period.

FL

And I note with some interest that my new governor does not consider me his brother, in a context where I am clearly considered an inferior.

You are NOT his brother in Christ (one of the senses in which “brother” is used in the New Testament) – so your governor was quite correct about that.

However, you ARE still his brother in the sense of “a fellow human.” Your governor’s statement therefore came across as too exclusive, and he was correct to subsequently issue an apology.

Also it should be noted that your governor DID say, “I want to be your brother”, so that clearly indicates he is talking about a desired familial relationship instead of an attempt to designate who’s superior or who’s inferior.

Are all “brothers and sisters”? As part of the human race, yes. But for believers in Christ, there is a familial link unknown to those who do not believe. The New Testament writers used such terms as fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters in writing to Christian believers, whether Jew or Gentile.

–Central Bible Chapel

So, wanna join the family.…?

FL

The family built on lies and ignorance? No thanks.

RBH said:

That’s child abuse of a very high order, worse even than Freshwater’s because the children are so much younger. Those kids are screwed.

I agree that most of the kids will be screwed if exposed to this brainwashing at such an early age (but not all - I went through years of Sunday school and still came out of it with an ability to question. To the extent that I rail against all authority, without question…), but I don’t think we can blame Purdom directly for the abuse. (Perhaps that’s not what you’re trying to say though.) The Sunday school is presumably not state sponsored (although the question of tax breaks muddies things a little), they can preach pretty much what they like.

It’s the parents who take their kids to this Sunday school who are responsible. They should have knowledge of what their kids are being exposed to there and decide whether they think it’s appropriate. The info about who teaches what is there on the blog now, and if they still wish to deposit their kids there, that’s their right.

All part of the balancing act of freedom of choice. Sucks for the kids though, who probably don’t have the choice of attendance.

No worries, children are used to being told lies. Santa brings you presents, the tooth fairy takes your teeth, the easter bunny does whatever the hell it does, and dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. These kids will grow up, realize they were lies, and move on with their lives.

An extreme sign of weakness and lack of true faith on the part of this woman.

Children of that age won’t be able to understand what she’s talking about, so it’s essentially telling them generically not to believe what they learn in school.

It’s a finger in the dike tactic. Trying to reduce the percentage that will inevitably learn that they are being lied to.

Of interest, she was presumably able to tolerate science classes well enough to go through the motions to get a PhD, for better or for worse, and remain a creationist. But she doesn’t seem to trust the kids to be able to do the same thing.

I have some trepidations about the use of the term “child abuse” here.

That term has a legal meaning in almost every jurisdiction.

Although this woman is horrifically lying to children, she is also merely “teaching” them culturally sanctioned religious dogma with the consent of the parents.

She’s lying to children in order to brainwash them against the science education that she fears they may be exposed to later, because her particular cult denies mainstream science.

Whether it’s child abuse or not is debatable. Whether it’s obnoxious isn’t.

Richard B. Hoppe Wrote:

That’s child abuse of a very high order, worse even than Freshwater’s because the children are so much younger. Those kids are screwed.

Thanks! And thanks again for your excellent coverage of “Freshwater.”

There’s not much that fellow “Darwinists” say that irritates me more than “Teach creationism in Sunday School.” While it may be legal to teach it there, it is especially immoral, not to mention hypocritical, to teach it where they preach “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

It’s one thing to teach Genesis stories where many students sooner or later “read between the lines” and dismiss them as allegories, and quite another to misrepresent science. In fact I consider it much worse child abuse when teachers avoid promoting Genesis (YE or OE versions) directly, and concentrate on long-refuted “weaknesses” of evolution, making sure to censor any refutations.

FL said:

Do we really want our children to walk away from their science classrooms thinking that it is wrong to question the scientific establishment and just accept whatever the scientific experts say? Absolutely not!

Good observational/operational science is based on the principles of questioning and attempting to falsify scientific findings.

Where would we be today in our understanding and treatment of disease if we had just accepted from the scientists of the past that disease was caused by bad air or “vapors”?

We needed scientists like Louis Pasteur to question and falsify these ideas.

–Dr. Georgia Purdom

Hmm. Sounds like science education, not child abuse.

But no matter. Go ahead and file a lawsuit for child abuse, RBH.

Betcha won’t win. At all. Period.

FL

Why is it that Creationists are willing to question the findings of scientists when they conflict with the Bible, but not willing to question the Bible itself?

That’s the double standard that shows what a scam Creationism is, especially when it cloaks itself in “scientific” language. A pig wearing makeup is still a pig.

Bob said:

No worries, children are used to being told lies. Santa brings you presents, the tooth fairy takes your teeth, the easter bunny does whatever the hell it does, and dinosaurs lived at the same time as man. These kids will grow up, realize they were lies, and move on with their lives.

Agreed. But I always wondered where the bunnies got the eggs.

Dale Husband said: Why is it that Creationists are willing to question the findings of scientists when they conflict with the Bible, but not willing to question the Bible itself?

When the Bible conflicts with what a creationist believes the solution is to interpret the Bible to agree with the belief. This also applies when the Bible conflicts with itself, or when the Bible is silent on an issue.

Why is it that Creationists are willing to question the findings of scientists when they conflict with the Bible, but not willing to question the Bible itself?

That’s the double standard that shows what a scam Creationism is, especially when it cloaks itself in “scientific” language. A pig wearing makeup is still a pig.

Please Dale, don’t be so unkind to pigs. They are fine, intelligent, tasty animals not at all like creationists. (Actually, I can’t say whether or not creationists also are tasty.)

Chris Caprette said: Please Dale, don’t be so unkind to pigs. They are fine, intelligent, tasty animals not at all like creationists. (Actually, I can’t say whether or not creationists also are tasty.)

I’m pretty sure that Creatards are generally considered to have poor taste.

As a Sunday School teacher myself, I think that her use of that time to teach about radiometric dating and mutation to be theologically horrifying to say nothing of intellectually dishonest. Even if by some off the wall chance she were telling them the truth and “presenting both sides equally” (which I am sure she is not), Sunday School is neither the time nor the place.

I totally agree with you Richard. That is just not right. You don’t have to tell children about unless you are planning on making your children really confused for the rest of their lives.

Eric

teach said: As a Sunday School teacher myself, I think that her use of that time to teach about radiometric dating and mutation to be theologically horrifying to say nothing of intellectually dishonest.

Not to mention incredibly boring. Creationists teach science as a set of facts, with little emphasis on doing. (Probably because if you do it, you get answers they don’t agree with. Like observing the constancy of half-lives.) This happened. Then this happened. Then the half-life changed. But don’t question how or why it changed, just memorize that it did.

“I have some trepidations about the use of the term “child abuse” here.

That term has a legal meaning in almost every jurisdiction.

Although this woman is horrifically lying to children, she is also merely “teaching” them culturally sanctioned religious dogma with the consent of the parents.

She’s lying to children in order to brainwash them against the science education that she fears they may be exposed to later, because her particular cult denies mainstream science. “

The term “child abuse” has certainly been bandied about a lot in reference to this issue by several of the authors of science blogs which I read regularly. And I agree with you that the term has a primary connotation as a legal term. Perhaps it should not be used unless the legal allusion is what is intended by the author. Or maybe not.

I know that I and many others do feel that deliberate miseducation is abusive and I would love to see a legalistic analysis if this is a legitimate issue that could and should be prosecuted as “child abuse” by the atheist movement. The other question is whether the term itself should be used deliberately even if the consensus is that it has no legal legs.

The legal issue is really complex, but fascinating, in my particularly uninformed opinion. Religion, and therefore religious education, has been given enormous Constitutional deference and an effort to constrain religious education in institutions would have enormous implications.

On the other hand, 1st Amendment religious speech and exercise rights are not unlimited and have been restricted if they conflict with certain compelling state interests. These include Federal drug laws (peyote use by Native Americans) and demonstrable physical harm to minors (medical care for children of Christian Scientists).

Whether the proper scientific education of children qualifies as a ‘Compelling Interest’ is a question which is not necessarily a loser right out of the box. The court has already “acknowledged that compulsory education was extremely important “in the generality of cases,” [http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/[…]9.2/Berg.pdf]This, as best as I can make out, was a special case that specifically exempted only Amish kids from needing a proper education.

Any Constitutional lawyers here?

I’m always amused to watch Christians blatantly lie. Is their “immortal soul” worth so little? It’s also entertaining to see the sheer hypocrisy when they use the same science daily that supports evolution, C-14 dating, etc. Purdom is not teaching children to question or any type of “science education”. She will tell them that she is correct and no questions will be tolerated.

Exactly! Why isn’t she spending that precious time expounding on the loving, merciful, and forgiving nature of the Christ? That’s what bugs me the most about mainstream evangelicalism. Even as a non-believer, I could still get down with *that* message. But I never hear it from them, and haven’t since the mid 1970’s. Instead of trying to put the Christ back in Christmas, it would be better to put the Christ back into Christianity, eh?

teach said:

As a Sunday School teacher myself, I think that her use of that time to teach about radiometric dating and mutation to be theologically horrifying to say nothing of intellectually dishonest. Even if by some off the wall chance she were telling them the truth and “presenting both sides equally” (which I am sure she is not), Sunday School is neither the time nor the place.

Dale Husband said:

Look at this nonsense:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/out[…]-purdom/bio/

Dr. Purdom is a fraud and/or an idiot, and her Ph.D isn’t worth spit.

As you can see at that link she, like very ID/creationist, consciously flaunts her title repeatedly.

The other young scientist wannabe at AiG, Jason Lisle, manages to work “Dr. Lisle” several times into just this presentation alone.

I suspect this reflects the deep-seated insecurity they feel in the presence of real learning and research experience; but it also establishes them as the rock stars of their subculture.

They use titles to impress and intimidate rubes; and no doubt they already know they aren’t impressing any real scientists.

FL said:

Hmm. Sounds like science education, not child abuse.

But no matter. Go ahead and file a lawsuit for child abuse, RBH.

Betcha won’t win. At all. Period.

FL

The mere fact that you, as a rube follower of this crap, thinks this is science education is sufficient to demonstrate that it is not.

We have clearly established on this forum that you have absolutely no understanding of science; and here you are again pretending that you do.

I’m puzzled as to how she can have a PhD in molecular genetics and not be overwhelmed by the evidence for evolution in that field alone. Has she compartmentalized her area of study and not bothered looking at the other aspects of molecular genetics because she already knows it is all “wrong”?

Why is it that Creationists are willing to question the findings of scientists when they conflict with the Bible, but not willing to question the Bible itself?

I have a different question. Why is it they question the findings of scientists (or call them misled/corrupt) when the findings conflict with their belief system, but willing accept the findings of these very same misled/corrupt scientists when they put something forth that supports their belief system? Not exactly stellar critical thinking.

Re: child abuse. Meh. Probably not even if you stretched the definition, and if you do successfully stretch the definition, you’re looking at the two-edged sword thing–i.e. it could be used against scientists/teachers/parents if some ideologically driven party was in power (I’m sure Inhofe would love to persecute some parents for child abuse because they teach their children that the globe is warming, and we’re very likely responsible).

Then you’re also looking at the state removing children from parents for reasons other than physical or emotional abuse, and I doubt even the most skeptical among us wants the government involved in those kind of decisions.

Daniel J. Andrews said:

Then you’re also looking at the state removing children from parents for reasons other than physical or emotional abuse, and I doubt even the most skeptical among us wants the government involved in those kind of decisions.

Just looking at some of the members of Congress makes one cringe at the thought of their making any kind of legislation.

Compartmentalization is a powerful tool for many religious adherents. I personally had the honor to run a section of freshman orientation seminar, and my class was a section of biotech students. A majority of that class were students from Malaysia, all but one of whom were devout adherents of Islam. I broached the special creation vs. evolution issue topic one time only, and after a little discussion I was informed that Islam instructs followers that only Imams are allowed to debate or discuss such matters. Their sense was that evolution held true for all but humans, who were specially created. I couldn’t get any of them to talk about earth age. Malaysia, as it happens, is trying to position itself as a world leader in biotechnology, but the weird thing is that sponsors instruct their US-educated students to learn something without accepting it, and further to avoid human biology and developmental bio courses whenever possible.

Daniel J. Andrews said:

I’m puzzled as to how she can have a PhD in molecular genetics and not be overwhelmed by the evidence for evolution in that field alone. Has she compartmentalized her area of study and not bothered looking at the other aspects of molecular genetics because she already knows it is all “wrong”?

henry said:

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said:

Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f[…]406791/posts

Pretty soon we’ll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Cherry picking idiot! The “record cold” is not in the equatorial regions, nor in the summer months. If they were lower in temperature too, you’d be right.

henry can’t explain, if there is an ice age on the way, why are the polar ice caps and glaciers of the world are receding at record rates.

Of course, that’s because he’s a cherry-picking idiot.

This is about the Himalayan glacier goof.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/[…]scandal.html

I wonder how much is fraudulent science. We already know from Climategate that the data was faked, but apparently it’s acceptable science.

So how is this supposed to explain why teaching children about Global Warming is child abuse, but teaching them Creationism is not?

How is this supposed to explain why Jesus had to ride a donkey that people provided for Him, rather than mindcontrolling dinosaurs, or magically conjuring a steed out of thin air?

And tell us again why we need to believe that climatologists are frauds when the hackers behind “Climategate” did not actually find any fraudulent science?

Also, henry, explain to us why Creationism is not fraudulent, either.

henry said:

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said:

Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f[…]406791/posts

Pretty soon we’ll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Cherry picking idiot! The “record cold” is not in the equatorial regions, nor in the summer months. If they were lower in temperature too, you’d be right.

henry can’t explain, if there is an ice age on the way, why are the polar ice caps and glaciers of the world are receding at record rates.

Of course, that’s because he’s a cherry-picking idiot.

This is about the Himalayan glacier goof.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/[…]scandal.html

I wonder how much is fraudulent science. We already know from Climategate that the data was faked, but apparently it’s acceptable science.

Henry, It is obvious to anyone with a background in science that “Climate Gate” (where CRU was found to have done nothing wrong after multiple investigations) and “Glacier Gate” are based primarily on misrepresentation, (i.e. quoting authors out of context to change the meanings of what they are saying) and exagerations of the importance of errors contained in publications, among other things. Almost all scientific research contains errors, however, in peer reviewed publications, they tend to be minor and they tend to get corrected in future publications many times by the same researcher(s) that made the initial error. Here is a quote from your biased source.

The IPCC’s shock prediction in its 2007 report that the likelihood of the glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high” thus had huge impact in India and other Asian countries, and it is precisely this statement that the IPCC has now been forced to disown.

What this story fails to mention is that Pachauri and as well as a large number of scientists with expertise in climate change have stated that these issues do not undermine the conclusions of the report that recent warming of the climate system is unequivocal and is largely due to human activities. So the denialists are essentially making a mountain out of a molehill here. The main conclusion of the IPCC publication still stands, even if a minor part of the publication was in error; an error which was corrected by Pachauri in subsequent research. So it appears Climatoligists weren’t lying after all. But your sources most certainly were.

I have a few, if not outright disagreements with, reservations over the AGW case – and if I were to be handed credible arguments against AGW I would have no reason to disbelieve them.

However, after the hysteria and obvious smear tactics of “ClimateGate” and the like, it’s almost embarrassing to even admit to modest reservations. The AGW faction may not walk on water – though that might come in handy with sea level rise – but the critics REALLY need to lose the tinfoil hats.

mrg said:

I have a few, if not outright disagreements with, reservations over the AGW case – and if I were to be handed credible arguments against AGW I would have no reason to disbelieve them.

However, after the hysteria and obvious smear tactics of “ClimateGate” and the like, it’s almost embarrassing to even admit to modest reservations. The AGW faction may not walk on water – though that might come in handy with sea level rise – but the critics REALLY need to lose the tinfoil hats.

And what? Stop admitting that the evil scientists are evil for not believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible or not believing that Jesus could have road on a raptor? Then that would mean Satan has won.

Stanton said: And what? Stop admitting that the evil scientists are evil for not believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible or not believing that Jesus could have road on a raptor?

I presume this is a rhetorical question?

mrg said:

Stanton said: And what? Stop admitting that the evil scientists are evil for not believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible or not believing that Jesus could have road on a raptor?

I presume this is a rhetorical question?

I like Stanton’s reductio ad absurdum style of argumentation. It’s hard to argue that the logical consequences of the Creationist position, of which Stanton is an apt illustrator, are not ridiculous.

J. Biggs said: I like Stanton’s reductio ad absurdum style of argumentation.

However, subtle it is not.

J. Biggs said:

henry said:

Stanton said:

Dale Husband said:

henry said:

Winter is the coldest time of the year, but why record cold?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f[…]406791/posts

Pretty soon we’ll have another ice age if we keep having record cold.

Cherry picking idiot! The “record cold” is not in the equatorial regions, nor in the summer months. If they were lower in temperature too, you’d be right.

henry can’t explain, if there is an ice age on the way, why are the polar ice caps and glaciers of the world are receding at record rates.

Of course, that’s because he’s a cherry-picking idiot.

This is about the Himalayan glacier goof.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/[…]scandal.html

I wonder how much is fraudulent science. We already know from Climategate that the data was faked, but apparently it’s acceptable science.

Henry, It is obvious to anyone with a background in science that “Climate Gate” (where CRU was found to have done nothing wrong after multiple investigations) and “Glacier Gate” are based primarily on misrepresentation, (i.e. quoting authors out of context to change the meanings of what they are saying) and exagerations of the importance of errors contained in publications, among other things. Almost all scientific research contains errors, however, in peer reviewed publications, they tend to be minor and they tend to get corrected in future publications many times by the same researcher(s) that made the initial error. Here is a quote from your biased source.

The IPCC’s shock prediction in its 2007 report that the likelihood of the glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high” thus had huge impact in India and other Asian countries, and it is precisely this statement that the IPCC has now been forced to disown.

What this story fails to mention is that Pachauri and as well as a large number of scientists with expertise in climate change have stated that these issues do not undermine the conclusions of the report that recent warming of the climate system is unequivocal and is largely due to human activities. So the denialists are essentially making a mountain out of a molehill here. The main conclusion of the IPCC publication still stands, even if a minor part of the publication was in error; an error which was corrected by Pachauri in subsequent research. So it appears Climatoligists weren’t lying after all. But your sources most certainly were.

http://www.icr.org/article/will-sol[…]bal-cooling/

“The energy coming from the sun is the primary driving force for the earth’s climate system. It drives the global circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean and is a key component of the greenhouse effect. When the sun has gone quiet like this before, it has coincided with a slight cooling of the earth. For example, the Maunder Minimum lasted about 50 years in the middle of the Little Ice Age between about 1550 and 1750 A.D. It had nearly zero sunspot activity and temperatures were generally cooler over most of Europe. When the sun is active, it coincides with warming. For example, the sun was very active from about 1850 to 2000 and the average global temperature in the northern hemisphere warmed during that period. Since about 2000 the sun seems to have declined in activity. There is speculation by some that if the sun is now growing quiet, cooling may be starting.”

Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]?

Chortle.

Wolfhound said: Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]?

Heh! Why not cite Marvel Comics? It would have more credibility and scientific authority.

mrg said:

J. Biggs said: I like Stanton’s reductio ad absurdum style of argumentation.

However, subtle it is not.

You can’t be subtle with deliberately pithed idiots like henry or Robert Byers.

Then again, they’re so dense, even reductio ad absurdum can’t penetrate much, either.

mrg said:

Wolfhound said: Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]?

Heh! Why not cite Marvel Comics? It would have more credibility and scientific authority.

As well as being less stupid-sounding, too.

“There is speculation by some that if the sun is now growing quiet, cooling may be starting.”

There is speculation by some that dumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere may not be a good idea, regardless of how the sun behaves in the next few years. Perturbing a system known to have non linear responses seems unwise in the extreme, especially since all life on earth depends critically on the stability of the system. Increasing the probability of sudden catastrophic climate change has never been a wise policy and never will be. This is especially true since more efficient and cheaper energy sources could easily be developed that could reduce the amount of carbon released. You can make up scandals all you want to, but that won’t change reality.

As for teaching children, they should be taught that their actions have predictable consequences and that ignoring a scientific consensus has consequences as well. This is true for global climate change, AIDS and evolution whether anyone likes it or not. Deal with it.

Stanton said: You can’t be subtle with deliberately pithed idiots like henry or Robert Byers.

Yeth, they thound like they’re completely pithed, don’t they?

Then again, they’re so dense, even reductio ad absurdum can’t penetrate much, either.

“Hold that thought.”

Wolfhound said:

Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]?

Chortle.

Excellent discussion of sunspot activity and temperature.

henry said:

Wolfhound said:

Did you really just quote stuff from the batshit crazy Institute for Creation Research[sic]?

Chortle.

Excellent discussion of sunspot activity and temperature.

What the Institute for Creation Research does is not “discussion.” It is lying and supporting baseless claims with lies and crude distortion of information.

And you still haven’t explained why it’s so important to believe that Jesus could have road on a raptor, or why He is supposed to be the Lord of Nature, even though He had to rely on other people to provide Him with a donkey for a mount.

Stanton said:

What the Institute for Creation Research does is not “discussion.” It is lying and supporting baseless claims with lies and crude distortion of information.

And you still haven’t explained why it’s so important to believe that Jesus could have road on a raptor, or why He is supposed to be the Lord of Nature, even though He had to rely on other people to provide Him with a donkey for a mount.

I think the fact that ICR even gives a shit about taking sides on AWG shows that their, “literal interpretation” of the Bible is less important to them than their ideological political agenda.

Tell me Henry, where does it say in the Bible that humans can’t be the cause of AGW? Nobody is saying that changes in the sun couldn’t effect things one way or the other, but the effects of green-house gases are well understood and have been for quite some time. I understood the concept of how green-house gases can increase the average global temperature back in 2nd grade (1981) when it was first presented to me. Look at Venus if you want a real scientific example of how an atmosphere with high concentrations of green-house gases can effect global temparatures. Mercury is far closer to the sun but for some reason Venus is much hotter, hmmm, I wonder why that could be, Henry?

ICR is going against the scientific consensus here yet again, and this time with no apparent reason other than the fact that they just hate science and want to attack its validity every chance they get.

J. Biggs said: ICR is going against the scientific consensus here yet again, and this time with no apparent reason other than the fact that they just hate science and want to attack its validity every chance they get.

I have heard it said that some fundies don’t think the Big G would allow global warming to take place. However, since fundies are quick to interpret natural calamities that of course are always happening as a sign that the Big G is irritated with us, that seems inconsistent even by fundy notions of reasoning.

mrg said:

J. Biggs said: ICR is going against the scientific consensus here yet again, and this time with no apparent reason other than the fact that they just hate science and want to attack its validity every chance they get.

I have heard it said that some fundies don’t think the Big G would allow global warming to take place. However, since fundies are quick to interpret natural calamities that of course are always happening as a sign that the Big G is irritated with us, that seems inconsistent even by fundy notions of reasoning.

Well the Bible does say God wouldn’t cause another global flood. Maybe they are hoping that God has chosen frying us as his method of mass murder this time around, and that global warming somehow signifies the beginning of the apocalipse they all seem to want so much.

J. Biggs said: … and that global warming somehow signifies the beginning of the apocalipse they all seem to want so much.

“Yet another apocalypse.” Reminds of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER heading off the apocalypse at the end of each season:

GILES: We’ve got to stop the apocalypse!

BUFFY: What – AGAIN?!

Just remember, however, any apocalypse that you survive is a good apocalypse.

True that.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on January 20, 2011 9:23 PM.

The Discovery Institute Tries Something Different: Feedback was the previous entry in this blog.

Denisovans and the species problem is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter