Speaking of Answers in Genesis …

| 264 Comments

Whilst spending the afternoon catching up on the 1,000+ unread posts in nearly 200 blogs in my reader, I happened onto a two week old post on Exploring our Matrix pointing to a post by Fred Clark at Slacktivist on the Patheos Progressive Christian channel titled Answers in Genesis teaches how not to read a story. An excerpt to whet your appetite:

The beginnings of the Clovis culture date back to around 13,500 years ago. The newer findings suggest people had arrived in North America even earlier – as early as 14,300 years ago. Allow me to translate those figures for my young-earth creationist, illiteralist fundamentalist friends. The godless scientists used to believe that the first humans arrived in North America 7,484 years before you think the Bible says the universe was created, but now the godless scientists have found evidence that humans were here at least 8,284 years before the creation of the universe.

I know, I know, picking on the young-earth creationists is too easy. Fish in a barrel and all that.

But they invite it. They’re not just wrong, but audaciously wrong. The weirdness of their conclusions becomes all the more horrifying when you try to trace the arcane routes they traveled to arrive at them.

Don’t miss the dig at a freethought billboard for taking the creationists’ literalist Biblical exegesis (semi-)seriously by calculating rainfall rates for Da Flood.

264 Comments

So YEC is proven to be wrong and is no wise correct in questions of origins. it cannot be using geology since it never happened and it uses no biological investigations. so multiple lines of independent evidence show that YEC is YUC. yet student will just believe it if they are teaching it without question.

(end parody of brain dead creationist dribble just thought I would say it first this time before you know who verbally vomits all over the thread and refuses to look at the evidence again this way i cannot be accused of feeding the troll)

We don’t even have to look at Clovis Culture. We’ve got SN1987A, which puts creation back to at least 170,000 BC. YECs can only “explain” it by dragging out nonsense about Star Trek-like “space warps”, gravity wells and bizarre changes in the speed of light, none of which they attempt to verify or reconcile with other physical observations.

Oh well, just more evidence to be explained away by the evils of “ungodly scientists” and their commitment to “materialism” (IOW, the demand for evidence).

Nothing really different from what the DI (more specifically, the CSC) does in order to disregard the evidence.

Glen Davidson

I can only think of about 20 things that totally discredit YEC beliefs. The fact that there’s not one or two, but at least 20 unique TYPES of evidence from at least four major fields of study that discredit it.

YECs can complain and whine and pick on one little piece as much as they like. But they simply cannot discredit fundamental processes that totally destroy them. They having nothing but a pathetically old myth that was stolen from even older cultures than themselves.

ogremk5 said:

YECs can complain and whine and pick on one little piece as much as they like. But they simply cannot discredit fundamental processes that totally destroy them. They having nothing but a pathetically old myth that was stolen from even older cultures than themselves.

There are only two ways to “destroy” a science: Either you show that it can not actually explain the suite of phenomena it claims to describe, like what happened with Phrenology and Lamarckianism, or you tabulate a new science that does the same job better/faster/stronger, like how Newtonian Physics was ultimately cannibalized by Einsteinian Physics.

What you are not supposed to do is to run around screaming that each new finding in said hated science is its death knell. What sort of nonsense funeral is it where the corpse of honor is too busy working to be dead? It makes you look like a hysterical idiot.

Why the infatuation with YEC, Richard?

Could it just be that slapping YEC silly is a much cleaner pasttime?

I mean, getting your(pl) noses bloodied by that lying ID isn’t all that much fun now, is it?

SteveP. said:

Why the infatuation with YEC, Richard?

Could it just be that slapping YEC silly is a much cleaner pasttime?

I mean, getting your(pl) noses bloodied by that lying ID isn’t all that much fun now, is it?

Still putting us down so you can look like some sort of big shot?

Isn’t it rather hypocritical for you to engage in the exact sort of bullshit that you accused us of in the last thread?

Or, SteveP, if you don’t consider yourself to be a moronic hypocrite, perhaps you could explain to us why we are not allowed to criticize Young Earth Creationists for making stupid lies about science, or why we are not permitted to point out that Young Earth Creationists make fools out of themselves everytime they talk?

Or is this question far too much to ask of from a lying idiot like yourself?

Because the YECs are actually more of a threat to rational thought and a free country than people like SteveP. As far as anyone can make out - Steve himself won’t say - he’s a kinda sorta pantheistic Gaeaist with the notion that Mind exists in everything and that this directs things, through immaterial fields of, y’know, consciousness, man.

Compared to the more typical YEC stance - which is along the lines of Byers’ “The USA was founded as a Protestant theocracy and that’s what we want to get back to right now” - Steve’s vaguely new age burble is mere harmless fruitcakery. The fundamentalists not only want a State which consists of a church - their church - they are prepared to do whatever it takes to get it. They’re organised, they tithe, they’re vocal, and there’s tens of millions of them. Steve, by comparison, is an impotent loon.

SteveP. said:

Why the infatuation with YEC, Richard?

Because they (YECs = Christian Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists) want to destroy the Constitution and overthrow the government. That’s reason enough to despise them, particularly on this Memorial Day.

The bible puts down clear boundaries to ages of man. The Indians only arrived in the americas about 1700 BC or so.

How in the world would anyone know when ancient peoples arrived anywhere? It could only be from some dating of some stuff they had on them or kicked! so its just a faith in some dating thing which by definition could not be verified. surely.

Without the faith in the dating method there is no way to know what gone people did and when relative to moving about. aIG is not wrong. they simply say the bible is true and the man made concept of unverifiable dating tricks is not true. Creationists have no problem with the public on issues like this. The public understand ancient things only are known by remaining evidence. Dating tricks is not proven.

Radiocarbon dates, in this case, because we are speaking of events less than 20 thousand years ago, well within the radiocarbon range. We are not speaking of one such date, but of dozens, of human remains, campfire ashes, coprolites and of bones from animals killed with stone spearheads.

Radiocarbon dates are as proven as science can be, when used professionally and honestly. Byers, of course, doesn’t believe it. This is because Byers is a fool and a crank.

Robert said:

The public understand ancient things only are known by remaining evidence. Dating tricks is not proven.

Robert, are you insane? There are no ‘dating tricks involved! How do you think scientists are able to manage satellites and spacecraft even millions of miles out in space, yet not able to make some simple scientific measurements on the planet?

Here is a dating method that even you might understand if you made the effort, but knowing you I think you won’t even give it a try:

Dendrochronology. By counting tree growth rings it is possible to make very accurate datings back to (IIRC) eight to twelve thousand years.

Please don’t come back with stupid things like ‘there may be more than one ring from the same year’ and things like that, scientists are of course well aware of possible sources of error and do all they can to eliminate them. Besides, there is a lot of historical evidence where the dates are already quite well known - and tree ring dating may be correlated with such dates to verify its accuracy.

Know what,when scientist find that historical records, radiocarbon dating and tree-ring dating all show the same time, we know that the methods are reliable, they tell us the age of the object in question

Don’t you think scientists think about what they are doing? Do you think? I don’t think you do!

Oh, but because Byers is a fool and a crank, and will simply deny radiocarbon dating, I will note that radiocarbon dates are strongly backed up by tree-ring, varve and ice-core dating, three different lines of evidence that provide cross-checks. Occasionally carbon in the form of ash is found in ice cores, or tree roots in lake varves. Where this happens, and a cross-check can be done, the dating methods tally neatly.

Radiocarbon dating relies on nothing less than basic nuclear physics. It can be used incorrectly, of course. Sampling errors can occur - that is, the date has to be of the actual sample, not of something else; contamination of samples has to be carefully avoided; the reservoir effect is well-understood to give wrong values due to the carbon in the sample being old at the time the sample was created. However, when used correctly, it is absolutely consistent and statistically reliable for dates between 500 and 50 000 years. Byers will go into denial, out of ignorance, prejudice and blind faith. This is because Byers is a fool and a crank.

Robert Byers said: The Indians only arrived in the americas about 1700 BC or so.

Just a few hundred years after Noah’s Flood in 2348 BC? Can you even realize how flamingly ignorant that statement is? Meanwhile, in the actual world, humans crossed the Bering Land Bridge between 15,000 and 17,000 years ago.

How in the world would anyone know when ancient peoples arrived anywhere?

See, for instance, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8[…]did-they-go/ - there may not be too many big words for you.

aIG is not wrong.

By definition, AIG and you are wrong about everything.

Robert Byers said:

The bible puts down clear boundaries to ages of man. The Indians only arrived in the americas about 1700 BC or so.

How in the world would anyone know when ancient peoples arrived anywhere? It could only be from some dating of some stuff they had on them or kicked! so its just a faith in some dating thing which by definition could not be verified. surely.

Without the faith in the dating method there is no way to know what gone people did and when relative to moving about. aIG is not wrong. they simply say the bible is true and the man made concept of unverifiable dating tricks is not true. Creationists have no problem with the public on issues like this. The public understand ancient things only are known by remaining evidence. Dating tricks is not proven.

Actually, radio carbon dating is only one way of determining the age of biological remains. It has been calibrated back over 35 thousand years. Robert has no idea how it works, he just knows it must be wrong or he is screwed. No reason why particularly, he just needs it to be wrong so it must be. He has no idea about all of the independent data sets that are used for dating in studying climate change. He has no idea about all of the genetic data that is used to track historical human migrations. He has apparently never read a single journal article or even taken a single science class of any kind. How sad.

Oh well, at least he didn’t claim that paleontology isn’t biology. At least he didn’t claim that archaeology isn’t biology. Dating tricks is proven Robert, it is biological investigations on origins, deal with it.

Thanks for the link Paul.

Unfortunately Robert doesn’t have the guts to look at the evidence and couldn’t understand it if he tried. He is just trying to prove that willful ignorance cannot be overcome by any amount of evidence, logic or reasoning. Of course, we already knew that. How he can explain the almost perfect correlation between the archaeological evidence and the genetic evidence in the mitochondrial DNA sequences I don’t know. My guess is that he won;t even try, since mitochondria has more than four letters. Why he thinks that ignorance is an argument or that it will fool those who knows about such things is questionable.

Robert Byers, walking self-refutation

Just like your mum knows when you’ve come home late and left early - it’s the messy bed and unwashed cup that you leave behind that constitute the traces of your presence. Likewise archaeology - a tad more sophisticated perhaps, but the basics are the same.

SteveP. said:

Why the infatuation with YEC, Richard?

Could it just be that slapping YEC silly is a much cleaner pasttime?

I mean, getting your(pl) noses bloodied by that lying ID isn’t all that much fun now, is it?

So how old is the earth, and how do you know?

Because the YECs are actually more of a threat to rational thought and a free country than people like SteveP. As far as anyone can make out - Steve himself won’t say - he’s a kinda sorta pantheistic Gaeaist with the notion that Mind exists in everything and that this directs things, through immaterial fields of, y’know, consciousness, man.

I’m inclined to strongly disagree.

Steve P. is a firm advocate of the “plausible deniability” game - just deny the science, while hiding your own agenda.

You don’t know what his agenda is. He won’t tell you. He won’t tell me either. I strongly predict that he won’t answer my simple question above. You’ve projected some mild-mannered latter day animism onto him, but he hasn’t stated any such thing.

What we know is that 1) he denies science, 2) he is vague and nebulous about his agenda for doing so, and fully adopts the DI “plausible deniability”, “don’t ask/don’t tell”, “ID isn’t religious, but of course it’s ‘friendly’ to authoritarian religion (and funded by religious authoritarians) and completely focused on evolution denial buy claiming miracles were required, but it isn’t religious, wink, wink” tactic.

One thing the last 50 years of US history have shown is that, as Orwell presciently suspected, those who play word games, disguise their true agenda, use coded language and informal purity tests, have risen in power.

YEC makes positive claims, those claims can be shown to be inaccurate, and it can only exist as an upscale version of flat-earthism, preying on the educationally and culturally deprived, and led by voluntarily self-brainwashed yet predatory “true believers”.

Persistent emotionally effective but vague anti-science propaganda, issued by parties who disguise their true agenda, is far more dangerous.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: The Indians only arrived in the americas about 1700 BC or so.

Just a few hundred years after Noah’s Flood in 2348 BC? Can you even realize how flamingly ignorant that statement is? Meanwhile, in the actual world, humans crossed the Bering Land Bridge between 15,000 and 17,000 years ago.

How in the world would anyone know when ancient peoples arrived anywhere?

Does anyone have an approximation for the population growth in various regions of the world based on the assumption that there were exactly 8 people in 2348 BC? How many people were around to build the Indus Valley civilization? How about to build the Pyramids of Egypt? How many people took place in the migration to the Americas some 600 years after the Flood? The Bible tells us about the number of people who were involved in the Exodus, some time about 1500 BC (or, according to some, 1200 BC).

TomS said:

Does anyone have an approximation for the population growth in various regions of the world based on the assumption that there were exactly 8 people in 2348 BC? How many people were around to build the Indus Valley civilization? How about to build the Pyramids of Egypt? How many people took place in the migration to the Americas some 600 years after the Flood? The Bible tells us about the number of people who were involved in the Exodus, some time about 1500 BC (or, according to some, 1200 BC).

I recently did some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations. Starting with 8 people (4 women), and based on the need for a 10,000 man dedicated work force to build the Pyramids and a 50% child mortality rate (not uncommon for the time), I estimated that it would have required something like every fertile woman to bear 8 live children every year for 20 years of her life time (ages 15 to 35) in order to achieve the requisite population to support the major Egyptian works built within 150 years of the Flood. And that’s just for Egypt. That doesn’t even count the Indus Valley, or Mesopotamia, or China, or anywhere else. Just Egypt. (My numbers and assumptions may be a bit off, but they’re probably within the ball park.)

The people of Noah’s family not only had lifespans of many hundreds of years, they also bred like rabbits.

Scott F said:

TomS said:

Does anyone have an approximation for the population growth in various regions of the world based on the assumption that there were exactly 8 people in 2348 BC? How many people were around to build the Indus Valley civilization? How about to build the Pyramids of Egypt? How many people took place in the migration to the Americas some 600 years after the Flood? The Bible tells us about the number of people who were involved in the Exodus, some time about 1500 BC (or, according to some, 1200 BC).

I recently did some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations. Starting with 8 people (4 women), and based on the need for a 10,000 man dedicated work force to build the Pyramids and a 50% child mortality rate (not uncommon for the time), I estimated that it would have required something like every fertile woman to bear 8 live children every year for 20 years of her life time (ages 15 to 35) in order to achieve the requisite population to support the major Egyptian works built within 150 years of the Flood. And that’s just for Egypt. That doesn’t even count the Indus Valley, or Mesopotamia, or China, or anywhere else. Just Egypt. (My numbers and assumptions may be a bit off, but they’re probably within the ball park.)

The people of Noah’s family not only had lifespans of many hundreds of years, they also bred like rabbits.

Oh, be fair. The Bible doesn’t say that Noah’s sons had only one wife each unless it’s implied by something in the original Hebrew.

SWT said:

Scott F said:

I recently did some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations. Starting with 8 people (4 women), and based on the need for a 10,000 man dedicated work force to build the Pyramids and a 50% child mortality rate (not uncommon for the time), I estimated that it would have required something like every fertile woman to bear 8 live children every year for 20 years of her life time (ages 15 to 35) in order to achieve the requisite population to support the major Egyptian works built within 150 years of the Flood. And that’s just for Egypt. That doesn’t even count the Indus Valley, or Mesopotamia, or China, or anywhere else. Just Egypt. (My numbers and assumptions may be a bit off, but they’re probably within the ball park.)

The people of Noah’s family not only had lifespans of many hundreds of years, they also bred like rabbits.

Oh, be fair. The Bible doesn’t say that Noah’s sons had only one wife each unless it’s implied by something in the original Hebrew.

1 Peter 3:20 says that there were eight people.

Generally your average YEC ignoramus like Byers doesn’t even deny that radiocarbon dating works. It works until it’s no longer producing “acceptable dates,” much as evidence of relatedness is accepted just until it’s no longer acceptable.

Few of them cavil at radiocarbon dating that backs up Bible dates, and I doubt that Byers does either (that he’s even thought about it seems unlikely). You just have to massively change the carbon levels and/or cosmic ray influx in order for all of the radiocarbon dates to radically differ, and surely with enough reduced carbon buried to react with all of the oxygen in the atmosphere several times over, “antediluvian” carbon levels would be different from post-diluvian levels. And since they don’t worry about evidence, the mere fact that there is absolutely no evidence for teh Flood or radical changes in carbon geochemistry, let alone for any sort of carbon reducing that would account for the buried carbon or the absorption of so much oxygen (by what?), it’s no problem for the resolute denial of the science that YEC is.

Still, some creationists do know that dating remains a problem for them, as I wrote in the past:

Here’s what was written on a poster at the Sixth International Conference on Creationism:

.…

* how well have done at building the Creation Model? * if we are honest, by looking at the current status of the Creation Model, the answer would have to be “poorly”! —we do not yet have a unified cosmological model —even nearly five decades after The Genesis Flood we still have no comprehensive model of earth history explaining the geologic (strata and fossil) record that includes general agreement on Creation Week rocks, pre-Flood/Flood and Flood/post-Flood boundaries —we are even still arguing about the nature of the geologic record, whether there really are rock sequences that can be traced across continents and correlated between continents! —we still don’t have a complete understanding of radiometric dates (e.g. concordant dates, meteorite dates), RATE notwithstanding.

Originally, there was a picture of the poster on Rosenhouse’s blog, but I don’t find it there any more, and have to use what I transcribed from its appearance there. They do admit many of there “problems,” but clearly don’t admit that they basically have no YEC understanding of the dates, especially the concordant dates, and even more so, radiometric dating that agrees with cyclostratigraphy or “astronomical dating.”

Glen Davidson

TomS said:

SWT said:

Oh, be fair. The Bible doesn’t say that Noah’s sons had only one wife each unless it’s implied by something in the original Hebrew.

1 Peter 3:20 says that there were eight people.

I stand corrected; that’s what I get for posting tongue-in-cheek remarks so quickly. The Genesis account doesn’t say there were only eight people.

TomS said:

1 Peter 3:20 says that there were eight people.

Was he there?

It turns my stomach to admit it, but I have to agree with Steve P. that this obsession with YEC is unwarranted. And I will add “counterproductive,” which makes Steve happy, and me not.

Granted “scientific” YEC has more fun arguments to refute than OEC and ID, so it’s hard to resist in that respect. But when the question is worded unequivocally, only ~20% of the public insists that the Earth (& Universe) are that young. That’s only half of those who believe that humans were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years. And even some of them might merely think that that souls were implanted in descendants of soul-free ancestors. Besides, most of the rank-and-file take it “on faith” and backpedal when shown evidence. Only fraction of a % of the public actively promote “scientific” YEC, and most of them are being replaced by the “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when” scam artists.

Certainly we should not ignore YEC, but it must be put in context of the much bigger problem, the “big tent” strategy. On this thread alone, 2 trolls are tag-teaming you, while running from their own fatal differences. Shooting fish in a barrel is not that easy when they multiply faster than you can shoot them. May I recommend, instead of “shooting,” slowly adding “ethanol to the water”? ;-)

DS said:

TomS said:

1 Peter 3:20 says that there were eight people.

Was he there?

I was sorely tempted to use that response; I now regret my restraint.

Frank J wrote

It turns my stomach to admit it, but I have to agree with Steve P. that this obsession with YEC is unwarranted. And I will add “counterproductive,” which makes Steve happy, and me not.

You wouldn’t if your school district had just blown $920K on account of a YEC teacher who used AIG, among creationist propaganda mills, as one of his sources. In fact, some of his stuff was even less sophisticated than AIG’s crap. And it was in the public school here, in middle school science classes.

One non-trivial effect of the modern intelligent design movement has been to provide intellectual cover for flat-out creationists. They mouth the ID terminology–irreducible complexity, for example, as Freshwater did in a lesson plan–but use the same tired material that Henry Morris and Ken Ham have pushed for decades.

The other interesting thing about the linked site in the OP is that it’s a ‘progressive’ Christian channel. To be blunt, anytime one has the chance to reinforce a schism between YECs and more moderate Christians one should take it. Isolate the whackaloon fringe and make their co-religionists in the more liberal wings of Christianity face up to the loons under their umbrella.

SWT said:

DS said:

TomS said:

1 Peter 3:20 says that there were eight people.

Was he there?

I was sorely tempted to use that response; I now regret my restraint.

Obviously, you are a better man than I.

John said:

Henry said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

Virtually all of them, including those who described themselves as “Christians”, were strongly influenced by the French, and especially, Scottish Enlightenments. Their view of a “Creator” is more closely aligned with those of Spinoza, Hume and Montesquieu and other notable figures of the Enlightenment, than it is with the fervently rabid Xian beliefs expressed by the “Christians” posting here, yourself included.

All of the Founding Fathers were disdainful of the Biblical God, especially in reference to how Christians have used God as the ultimate excuse to oppress others, and promote suffering, strife and stupidity.

Which one described the Trinity as a “three headed monster”?

And having said that, let’s return to the topic…

To the Creationist trolls in this thread (i.e., Henry and SteveP): Why do we have to trust what Answers In Genesis says about science?

Besides the fact that the staff of Answers In Genesis have a vested interest in (and a long record of) lying and promoting anti-science propaganda, the staff of Answers In Genesis clearly demonstrate that they totally lack reading comprehension skills.

Why are we supposed to trust Answers In Genesis when they totally lack any credibility? Because Jesus will murder us and torture us forever in Hell if we don’t?

The Constitution specified 3/5 of the number of “other persons” (that is, slaves) be counted in the population of states. That was a compromise which the non-slave states got so that slave states wouldn’t get more votes in Congress by counting all of their slaves. It was not favoritism to slave holders, quite the contrary.

The Copernican model of the Solar System was quite firmly established by the 1700s, and the round Earth long before that.

Belief in witchcraft was pretty much obsolete by then.

Which one described the Trinity as a “three headed monster”?

The Trinity is actually Cerberus?

Is that why “god” is “dog” spelled backwards?

Henry J said:

Which one described the Trinity as a “three headed monster”?

The Trinity is actually Cerberus?

Is that why “god” is “dog” spelled backwards?

Thomas Jefferson said:

“The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.”

No wonder the Conservatives are purging all mention of Thomas Jefferson from textbooks in Texas.

apokryltaros said:

Thomas Jefferson said:

“The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.”

No wonder the Conservatives are purging all mention of Thomas Jefferson from textbooks in Texas.

I checked at Wikiquote, and it refers to Positive Atheism, which in turn says that this quotation has not been found in Jefferson’s writings.

TomS said:

apokryltaros said:

Thomas Jefferson said:

“The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.”

No wonder the Conservatives are purging all mention of Thomas Jefferson from textbooks in Texas.

I checked at Wikiquote, and it refers to Positive Atheism, which in turn says that this quotation has not been found in Jefferson’s writings.

Check Jefferson’s 1787 Notes on the State of Virginia, also quoted here.

You will find at that latter site a rather good sample of what Jefferson thought of religion and its leaders.

Here it is in Notes on Virginia Query XVIII, “The Peculiar Customs and Manners,” Page 80.

Mike Elzinga said:

Here it is in Notes on Virginia Query XVIII, “The Peculiar Customs and Manners,” Page 80.

This is what I found (Query XVII, page 80 in this edition):

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burn, tortured, find, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

Incidentally, and this has nothing to do with the point, but I found it amusing (page 79):

Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher …

I wonder if Jefferson might be thinking of Europe when he made this comment. It certainly was never true in America. Also, at the introduction of Christianity, the Christians were the ones burned, tortured, imprisoned, etc.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Here it is in Notes on Virginia Query XVIII, “The Peculiar Customs and Manners,” Page 80.

This is what I found (Query XVII, page 80 in this edition):

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burn, tortured, find, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

Incidentally, and this has nothing to do with the point, but I found it amusing (page 79):

Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher …

Henry, if you had ever read history, which of course you haven’t, you would know that in the territory that was to be occupied by the USA, Christians hanged, imprisoned, exiled and pilloried other Christians - often Quakers - with great glee and righteous justification. That was the reason for the foundation of the Rhode Island colony, and it was widely condemned in New England as ungodly because it tolerated religious difference. Maryland, founded by Roman Catholics, became increasingly intolerant of them as the balance shifted towards Protestantism. The anti-Catholic laws of 1688, copied from England, were strongly enforced there, and it was not until 1776 that the Maryland state constitution repealed them. Even Virginia still prescribed capital punishment for unregenerate Quakers as late as 1720. Religious taxes on all - co-religionists or not - were often imposed in the eighteenth century, and were alone one of the reasons why people minded to be free of them tended to move further out.

The Constitution didn’t completely bring an end to religious persecution in the United States. Even in the nineteenth century, Christians massacred other religious groups, such as the Mormons, and there are those who would put the Waco massacre of 1993 in the same category. But the Constitution, a manifestation of the Enlightenment, did put an end to formal theocracy in the United States, by forbidding government to support or discriminate against any religion. The fact that there are still ignoramuses like Henry who think that the United States is some sort of pristine exception to all human experience of religious intolerance, and who want to bring theocracy back, testifies to the fact that not even the Constitution can educate a fool.

Henry said:

I wonder if Jefferson might be thinking of Europe when he made this comment. It certainly was never true in America. Also, at the introduction of Christianity, the Christians were the ones burned, tortured, imprisoned, etc.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Here it is in Notes on Virginia Query XVIII, “The Peculiar Customs and Manners,” Page 80.

This is what I found (Query XVII, page 80 in this edition):

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burn, tortured, find, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

Incidentally, and this has nothing to do with the point, but I found it amusing (page 79):

Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher …

Why don’t you try actually learning something* before spouting about what is “certainly” true, ignoramus.

http://www.sundaylaw.net/studies/tr[…]secution.htm

http://www.common-place.org/vol-06/no-01/juster/

——

*And by “something” I mean actual unbiased information, not canned talking points from bullshit fundie websites set up to tell credulous fools like you what they want to hear.

Henry said:

I wonder if Jefferson might be thinking of Europe when he made this comment. It certainly was never true in America. Also, at the introduction of Christianity, the Christians were the ones burned, tortured, imprisoned, etc.

So instead of learning to avoid the evils of religious bigotry, you try to use them to defend your own brand of bigotry. Good job Henry. Those who will not learn the lessons of history are stupid.

The TEA party is a good representation of the general population.

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

harold said:

That is, you have to say and believe that Jesus is Lord and Saviour. If you do, you’re in. If you don’t, you’re damned.

The post-modern adoption of the “I can do whatever I want as long as I ‘believe’ and ‘repent’, and you’re going to Hell no matter what you do” mentality is interesting.

As someone raised in a non-science denying church that was traditionally considered a bit too austere by other mainstream churches, I can tell you that the “I can do whatever I want as long as I say the magic words” school of thought has massively expanded in the post-modern era.

Denying the importance of “works” and taking a “screw you, only I go to heaven because only I get the magic words right” mentality has, of course, always existed, but it used to be the signature of isolated, extreme sects.

It fits perfectly with the contemporary Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party mentality. Behave as wastefully, selfishly, and belligerently as possible, claim that the best possible system is everyone doing this all the time, and angrily deny any evidence to the contrary.

See

Composition

Membership and demographics section

Henry said:

The TEA party is a good representation of the general population.

Then why did McCain/Palin lose? Big.

Henry, you still have not explained to us why or how your demonstrably false claim blatant lie that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were Young Earth Creationists is supposed to magically prove Young Earth Creationism true, and magically prove Evolution to be false.

Why is that?

It was the perfect storm.

People voted for Obama just because they wanted to vote for the first black president. Many conservatives sat out because McCain wasn’t conservative enough. People were sick of big government Republicans and wanted them out, even before the 2008 election. The Democrats won control of Congress in 2006. Bush wanted amnesty for illegals, which was against the majority of Americans.

Of course, with Obama’s $1 trillion deficits, Obamacare, poor handling of the economy, the TEA party helped 2010 Republican landslides in Federal and States governments. Many of the TEA party members became active in politics after seeing Obama in action. Even after the huge Republican victories in 2010, Obama is still tone deaf. He is still going against most Americans, which will lead to his landslide defeat in November.

Just Bob said:

Henry said:

The TEA party is a good representation of the general population.

Then why did McCain/Palin lose? Big.

Spinning so fast, you’re drilling yourself into the ground.

BTW, I didn’t vote for Obama because he is “black”. His heritage is 1/2 caucasian, yet you call him “black”. With equal justification, one could call him “white”.

Does any “taint” of African genetics make one “black”, regardless of how much “white” is in one’s genes? And colorwise he isn’t even close to black. He isn’t much darker than I am with a summer tan, and my ancestry is “white” as far back as I know. I know folks of Mexican, Asian Indian, Middle Eastern, and even a Mongolian who are all darker in color than the President. But you wouldn’t call any of them “black”.

But the President has to be called “black” because, you know, he’s half ni African, right?

I didn’t vote for McCain, who I suspect would have made a tolerably decent president, because as even many conservatives have admitted, Palin was unthinkable as president. A joke. And that McCain would pick such a running mate completely discounted his judgment on any serious matter.

The 2008 elections gave the Democrats huge majorities in the House and Senate, but the 2010 elections gave the Republicans a huge majority in the House and reduced the Democrats filibuster proof majority in the Senate to just a 51 vote majority. Why the big change in just 2 years?

Just Bob said:

Spinning so fast, you’re drilling yourself into the ground.

BTW, I didn’t vote for Obama because he is “black”. His heritage is 1/2 caucasian, yet you call him “black”. With equal justification, one could call him “white”.

Does any “taint” of African genetics make one “black”, regardless of how much “white” is in one’s genes? And colorwise he isn’t even close to black. He isn’t much darker than I am with a summer tan, and my ancestry is “white” as far back as I know. I know folks of Mexican, Asian Indian, Middle Eastern, and even a Mongolian who are all darker in color than the President. But you wouldn’t call any of them “black”.

But the President has to be called “black” because, you know, he’s half ni African, right?

I didn’t vote for McCain, who I suspect would have made a tolerably decent president, because as even many conservatives have admitted, Palin was unthinkable as president. A joke. And that McCain would pick such a running mate completely discounted his judgment on any serious matter.

Why the Democrats lost support in 2010 might just be general disenchantment - the turnout was far lower.

One reason for that disenchantment might well be extreme disappointment with Obama. He’s a lovely talker, but talk is cheap. He didn’t go after the criminals who fomented the war in Iraq, nor those who buried the banks under phony paper. Both sets should now be in jail. He didn’t try or release the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, and by doing so has destroyed habeas corpus for good. Failing absolute, practically expressed disavowal, habeas corpus now exists only so long as it is not inconvenient to the executive. He exonerated the torturers and abductors, and so enshrined raison d’etat as part of American law. He has asserted that he may execute any person as it seems fit to him, with no form of judicial colour, no “due process” by any standard ever heard of before. He has refused to dismantle a “security” apparatus that asserts as a commonplace, that anyone can be subjected to any search or seizure that its operatives take it into their heads to impose, and the Constitution be damned.

There was a time when the United States was indeed a shining beacon on a hill. It may yet be again. Alas, not under this President or this Congress. I can only trust the American people to do better. I’m sure that they can. I can only hope that they will. But I know that Romney, who would do anything to be elected, and nothing once elected, is not the man to do it.

Why don’t we get back to the topic of the thread?

You know, about why we are supposed to take what anti-science bigots like the staff of Answers In Genesis say about science, even though they

A) Know absolutely nothing about science

B) Profess to have religious prohibitions forbidding science education under pain of eternal damnation

C) Have been repeatedly demonstrated to have an anti-science and anti-science education agenda

and, perhaps most telling,

D) Have sub-par reading comprehension skills even by elementary school standards.

So far, the only reason the creationists on this thread have given us is that… uh… It’s apparently very unfair to not take Answers In Genesis’ anti-science diatribes seriously.

And then resident bigot Henry comes along to change the topic to advertising his blatant lie that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were all Young Earth Creationists who believed that the Earth is only 10,000 years old under pain of eternal damnation.

And when asked of any proof or justification that the Founding Fathers were anti-science bigots like himself, he further adjusts the topic so he can now begin bitching about how President Obama is so awful and so terrible and will lead the US into fiscal and literal ruin and damnation because President Obama is neither white, nor Republican.

Very telling.

Dave Luckett said:

Also, most regrettably, when Paul came to state what is required for salvation, he was plain but not exhaustive: Romans 10:8-10. This, plus John 3:16, is what the fundies fling in everyone’s teeth who doubts that confession by faith and belief is sufficient - if indeed anything is. The fact that this doctrine runs directly contrary to Jesus’s own words on the subject never seems to come up; for Jesus was unequivocal about what matters: Matthew 31:34 ff.

I find myself in the very peculiar position of disagreeing with Dave Luckett. That’s rare.

To review, here is Romans 10:9

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Here is Matthew 25:34:

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, …

These two passages exhibit the faith-works dichotomy found between Paul and James. My take is this: Romans 10:9 specifies the absolute minimal requirements for Salvation. Romans 10:9 applies if you are hanging on a cross expecting to die within a few hours, or swimming around in the cold north Atlantic while bubbles from the Titanic rise around you. Matthew 25:34 applies if you have more time. James is addressed to a bunch of Christian slackers who thought they could just cazh back and avoid putting their faith into action - “I’m saved and happy now!”

Jesus Himself affirmed the statement of Pauline minimalism while on the cross, in Luke 23 (ESV):

39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

By his own words, the second criminal did not do one single good work in his sorry life! But he 1) stated that Jesus was Lord, and 2) believed that Jesus was going to rise from the dead. That qualified him for Salvation, as indicated by Jesus’ response.

I think the second criminal is the very first person to realize the Jesus was going to rise from the dead.

You’re not disagreeing with me, exactly. Any difference is one of emphasis.

Paul at Romans 10:9 was “not exhaustive”, I said. I don’t think he thought that the affirmation of faith and belief, even if genuine, and not hypocritical, was alone sufficient except in extremis. (Possibly he was thinking of the confession of the Jewish faith “when the knife is at the throat and the fire at the feet” : Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One!)

Unfortunately, that’s not what he wrote at Romans 10:9. He didn’t qualify. That’s a bit of an oversight, I think.

Now, of course, any Christian who’s within a bull’s roar of reason on this matter thinks of it in the same way as you do. Unfortunately, we have experience here of Christians who aren’t and don’t. For FL and his merry crew, it simply doesn’t matter how you behave - and if you doubt that, watch how he does. No, what matters is beleeeeeving. I don’t actually blame Paul for this state of affairs. But it’s regrettably true that he said something that provides these loons with a figleaf to cover their naked pride, hubris and uncharity.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on May 28, 2012 3:54 PM.

Castor canadensis was the previous entry in this blog.

ScienceBlogs migration 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 4.38

Site Meter