Typical abuse of language to make an ad hominem attack. Microevolution, that is, minor alterations in DNA of life forms which cause changes within kinds, is indeed scientific. Macroevolution, that is, the theory that claims all species evolved from a single life form, is not the same thing. It flies in the face of the discovery of nutrients found in the soil samples that date back to the earliest moments in Earth’s history where life is possible. It flies in the face of the Cambrian explosion, the point where the fossil record shows a dramatic all-at-once development of complex life forms.
It is the method used by Bill Maher to ridicule theists, and while humorous, it is hardly rigorous as either a discussion of science or debate in general.
There is plenty of room for scientific debate on theories. But some theories, that is, those that find an inference of an active creator involved in planning and developing his creation, are not welcome.
Perhaps those who wish this theory to be banned from schools are uncomfortable with the inferences to a Creator that may be made from said theory. But that is neither scientific nor open-minded.

It seems as though non-Christians would like to confer all sins and errors of all previous non-Christians to all living Christians.
Perhaps, then, we should confer all sins and errors of all previous non-Christians to all living non-Christians.
Stalin, Khan, Mao?

I’m fascinated by this leap: “anyone who doesn’t accept evolution” = “you don’t believe in science.” If you don’t believe in the current theory of Evolution, “you don’t believe in germs”? So much for rational thinking.
Given, however, that the paper is satirical, I would suspect and suggest that this quote should be taken as being aimed at humor rather than intended as literal. Surely it doesn’t make genuine sense at face value to anyone.

This guy’s problem is that he doesn’t understand the difference between science and metaphysics, and he just assumes all Christians are young-earth creationsists. Nothing new here, nor funny.

Dale
February 19, 2009 6:45 AM
Typical abuse of language to make an ad hominem attack. Microevolution, that is, minor alterations in DNA of life forms which cause changes within kinds, is indeed scientific. Macroevolution, that is, the theory that claims all species evolved from a single life form, is not the same thing.
Boris says: The scientific imbecility of people like Dale is just off the charts. In no other country in the world are people so completely ignorant of science. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over thousands and millions of years. We know that the belief that lifeforms cannot evolve beyond their “kind” is based directly and solely upon the Book of Genesis, which uses the term “kind” in the story of Creation. The scientifically recognized method of taxonomical classification is the familiar Linnean system: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. Each step of the Linnean ladder represents a meaningful, clearly defined differentiation among anatomical structures. The notion of “kind” is a biblical doctrine and represents no legitimate scientific distinction among lifeforms. Anyone who uses the word “kinds” to describe species of animals is using the language of religion NOT science.
Dale said: There is plenty of room for scientific debate on theories. But some theories, that is, those that find an inference of an active creator involved in planning and developing his creation, are not welcome.
Boris says: A scientific theory must also be capable of being falsified. That is, there must be some set of circumstances such that, if they were to occur, the theory would fail to explain the facts. Scientists expend a great deal of time and effort devising tests of falsification, for any theory incapable of being falsified, such as that God exists or that people have souls, is not a scientific one
Dale said: Perhaps those who wish this theory to be banned from schools are uncomfortable with the inferences to a Creator that may be made from said theory. But that is neither scientific nor open-minded.
Boris says: In contrast, the methods and claims of creationists are not subject to experimentation, prediction, revision, or falsification. To them, these pursuits are irrelevant, because they believe they possess the “truth” as set forth in the Bible. In their view, scientific theory or evidence that contradicts the Bible must be in error, because the Bible (actually their particular interpretation of the Bible) cannot be mistaken. Religious dogma does not belong is a science class. There are no CHRISIAN colleges or universities that teach science that discuss a creator of any kind in their science classes. Yet religious fanatics like Dale want to force their religious dogma and lies into public school science classes.
People like Dale need to go back and study the court cases in each of our states that rendered decisions that the Bible must be removed from the public schools. In each and every case the Bible was removed NOT because it was a religious holy book but because the plaintiffs proved beyond any doubt in the Court’s mind that the Bible was chock full of scientific and historical inaccuracies and outright lies. I am very familiar with most of these cases as one of my distant Jewish ancestors was responsible for getting the KJV removed from the public schools in Minnesota. I am VERY proud of that fact. Dale’s religious dogma, lies, nonsense and scientific imbecility belong in a church, not in a public school science class.

MzEllen
You said: It seems as though non-Christians would like to confer all sins and errors of all previous non-Christians to all living Christians.
Perhaps, then, we should confer all sins and errors of all previous non-Christians to all living non-Christians.
Stalin, Khan, Mao?
Christians Fundamentalists have been devilishly successful in their propaganda campaign that all communists are atheists, and that all atheists are communists. But these “facts” are altogether erroneous. First, I strongly challenge the assumption that communism is a truly atheistic philosophy. It seems to me that the omniscient god of Christianity is simply replaced by the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god of Christianity is simply replaced by the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent god of the State. Under the communistic system, the State is supposedly all-wise, all-good and all powerful. Communism is therefore just as nutty as religion in its unrealistic, Utopian fantasies and pie-in-the-sky promises.
Undeniably, some communist nations, such as Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, have been guilty of horrible human rights abuses. No atheist I ever met defends such political repression! Not even the current leaders of Russia and China defend the barbaric actions of their predecessors. But these past human rights abuses invariably stemmed from the leadership’s power-mad political ambitions, rather than from an academic or philosophical conviction that religion contradicted the laws of physics. Atheists believe in both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, as each individual chooses. If atheism is hypothetically responsible for political repression in China, then Christianity is certainly responsible for the atrocities of the Inquisition, the Crusades and witch burnings. Is it really fair to condemn a school of thought for the perversions and abuses of its teachings?

Stan,
You said: I’m fascinated by this leap: “anyone who doesn’t accept evolution” = “you don’t believe in science.” If you don’t believe in the current theory of Evolution, “you don’t believe in germs”? So much for rational thinking.
Boris says: The fact is that the very same people who deny evolution also don’t believe in modern cosmology, geology, oceanography, anthropology, zoology, cell theory, quantum physics, archaeology (because it PROVES the Bible is full of mythology), astronomy and the rest of science as well. Ask any creationist and they will deny say the Big Bang which has absolutely nothing to do at all with biological evolution. And it seems almost superfluous to point out that the only people claiming not to believe in evolution are the exact same people from the exact same cult that has always denied all new science: Bible believers and no one else. Bible believers have been on the wrong side of every scientific discovery and theory ever since the Bible was written.

ZZ said: This guy’s problem is that he doesn’t understand the difference between science and metaphysics, and he just assumes all Christians are young-earth creationsists. Nothing new here, nor funny.
Boris says: Most Christians accept evolution, as has the ENTIRE CHRISTIAN academic community. The asininity of creationism and its pseudo-scientific hoax ID is that evolution is taught is every Christian college and university with a legitimate science department and creationism and ID are taught nowhere, because there is nothing to teach. Like theology itself, NONE of these things are even subjects. They are religious dogma and nonsense believed by only the most ignorant and arrogant morons on the planet: American Christians. ZZ you’re not a young earther? That’s a surprise.
4 arguments just got knocked over like bowling pins – again. You Christian liars really need some new material. This is just too easy.

I expected more humor from his speech.
I thought it was funny.

i enjoyed the humor, and the honesty in his speech.
michele’s copy and paste was as lame as usual.
“Typical. Limiting the freedom of others seems to be the first response of some on the left. Why not just throw the creationists in jail for re-education. Nothing like group think, huh? And of course scientist have never been wrong, why not put our complete trust in their theories even though they have yet to determine with certainty how our world was created from nothing. No one has even come close.”
first of all, you love to assume way too much and paint the left as wanting to take away freedoms. where was that done here? where does the speech say the audience was “the left”? and yes, let’s talk about group think. do you have any idea how many christians we have here who know little to nothing about their religion other than the passages they are taught to recite as children? i hope you don’t assume that christians are a group separate from those who understand that the theory of evolution is fact. actually, there is a large overlap of those groups.
is this what you thought the speech was about, taking away the freedoms of creationists?
aside from his accurate depiction of how christians in general treat atheists and agnostics (often demonstrated by you and your followers on this blog), the speaker was making the point that all of these sciences which add credence to the scientific theory of evolution, creationists take advantage of most. they take these things for granted. you even go along with the point he’s making. of course scientists are wrong many times, but science is self correcting, not stuck in some tome written thousands of years ago by men. and still, evolution has withstood harsh scientific (and not so scientific) scrutiny for more than a hundred years only to be supported by discoveries in biology, chemistry, geology, immunology, paleontology, and genetics. so one has to ask you, michele, do you trust the science enough or not? will you accept medical treatment that has advanced as a result of the sciences that support evolution? if you don’t believe the science behind it, then don’t submit yourself to the treatment. it’s a simple and reasonable point to make.
this one is worth quoting twice:
“Why not just throw the creationists in jail for re-education.”
rather than throw anti-evolutionists in jail or expect that they would ever absorb any such re-education (that would be unamerican, right?), i agree with the speaker that creationists stick to their convictions, wilfully ignoring the sciences and evidence that support evolution and abstain from using any modern convenience that has come as a result of these sciences. let them do the leg work of scientific research and make these advances on their own, or let natural selection run its course.

Boris, surely even an atheist like you must have read the Bible once. Didn’t you notice in acts that the believers “had all things in common”? That’s why communism is the most truly Christian economic system.

let natural selection run its course.
Yes, that unuttered implication was very funny.
(just read the entire speech now … didn’t realize at first how vulgar it was … but still funny in spots despite that).

Robert said: “That’s why communism is the most truly Christian economic system.”
Yeah the story about Ananias and Sapphira sickens me but it has one redeeming feature. It’s as untrue as any story ever told, like the rest of the Bible.

Some of you could have have surmised I am hardly a Biblical literalist. Actually, it was when I went to Jerusalem and found I could read the Dead Sea Scrolls–which were in modern Hebrew, gee, isn’t that odd?–that I started taking a much closer look at the Bible. By the time I was reading the Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic, “Oh, Green Goddess, call Thy verdant earth to bring forth grain,” in one targum, I pretty much had to drop out of being and elder and Sunday School teacher.
A lot of it is wonderful metaphor, probably really gripping stuff for the audiences that understood the metaphor. The main place I would disagree with Boris is, I think the transcendent is possible, that there is a connection to the not-human that isn’t limited to a book or scroll. Of course, that’s also where I would disagree with Michelle.
As for the speech, oh, lighten up. It was funny. And maybe his best lines weren’t recorded because he couldn’t be heard through the Kevlar. But I don’t see any reason to hate anyone for their belief or non-belief in God. I really don’t.

and found I could read the Dead Sea Scrolls–which were in modern Hebrew, gee, isn’t that odd
Huh, a little help understanding this?

I can understand your dislike of his speech. It was witty and sensible. Not as funny as I’d prefer, but not everyone can be funny all the time.
And, of course, I agree with Mr. Dikkers: live your beliefs.
When your belief doesn’t match the real world, you need to strongly consider changing at least some parts of that belief. Or accept that people won’t think you’re nearly as intelligent and sensible as you think you are.

Hey Boris,
Badge of honor to be ripped by you.
Now, as to your “ignorance of science” claim: I see your criticism of my terms, not so much of content. As to change over thousands of millions of years, certainly it takes place. But where are the transitional species? Transitional between phyla in the fossil record? What about mass expansion events, like the avalon and cambrian events? How do those make sense with the gradual theory of evolution? What of evolutionary changes that weaken creatures in the short term, although their eventual development would strengthen a species? How did the transitional creatures survive en masse to overwhelm a population?
But more importantly, and left out of the initial post: where did the life come from? How did it develop when it did, as soon as conditions would allow it? Please don’t give the “macrobiotic soup” hypothesis; the research following the study that created amino acids under strictly controled circumstances has been utterly debunked as creating non-historic atmospheric environments.
Macroevolution is decidedly not microevolution over longer periods. It is merely a hypothesis of extrapolating what might have happened by what we can observe. As such, it was very good science on the part of Darwin. But Darwin in “Origin of Species” gave the expected finds in the archeolocial record that would be necessary for his theory to stand: he expected a large number of transitional species should exist in the fossil record. If species are in a constant state of transition, then the record should substantiate the theory. To date it has not.
DNA studies have found most of the pre-human primate species were dead-ends, not transitional species, e.g. homo neandertalis. Thus, if the theory is failing, new theories must be formed. Clinging desperately to failing theories is not science, it is dogmatic.

[i]If species are in a constant state of transition, then the record should substantiate the theory. To date it has not.[/i]
The difference between macroevolution and microevolution is merely an issue of size. Just because science has not found absolute scientific proof in humans or any mega-fauna does not mean the theory of evolution is not equally as valid for large animals as it is for small ones.
In order to test for evolutionary change, one has to scientific test over several generations. In order to do that, one has to test a creature that would live for dozens of generations during the period of the research. Only the very smallest creatures, like fruit flies or small tropical fish, have been proven to evolve in real lab tests. Just because we have not tested chimpanzees over dozens of generations does not mean the theory of evolution won’t hold up just as well.
Scott Dikker’s attitude was harsh – maybe tongue-in-cheek – but I think creationists really should think more clearly about the argument they hold.

Hey Boris,Badge of honor to be ripped by you.
You said: Now, as to your “ignorance of science” claim: I see your criticism of my terms, not so much of content. As to change over thousands of millions of years, certainly it takes place. But where are the transitional species? Transitional between phyla in the fossil record? What about mass expansion events, like the avalon and cambrian events? How do those make sense with the gradual theory of evolution? What of evolutionary changes that weaken creatures in the short term, although their eventual development would strengthen a species? How did the transitional creatures survive en masse to overwhelm a population?
Boris says: One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:
A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.
There are many transitional fossils, including the ape-human transitional from Australopithecus. Eusthsnpteron shows marvelous intermediate characteristics between lobed-finned fishes and amphibians. Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that specialization occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant.
You said: But more importantly, and left out of the initial post: where did the life come from? How did it develop when it did, as soon as conditions would allow it? Please don’t give the “macrobiotic soup” hypothesis; the research following the study that created amino acids under strictly controled circumstances has been utterly debunked as creating non-historic atmospheric environments.
Boris says: You miss the point, which is that the complex carbon based molecules that occur in living matter can be readily produced by chemical reactions involving simpler substances. This is another example of how simplicity can beget complexity, contrary to the claims of creationists.
You said: Macroevolution is decidedly not microevolution over longer periods. It is merely a hypothesis of extrapolating what might have happened by what we can observe. As such, it was very good science on the part of Darwin. But Darwin in “Origin of Species” gave the expected finds in the archeolocial record that would be necessary for his theory to stand: he expected a large number of transitional species should exist in the fossil record. If species are in a constant state of transition, then the record should substantiate the theory. To date it has not.
Boris says: When you say “ Macroevolution is decidedly not microevolution over longer periods” you are disagreeing with evolutionary biologists that it is. This claim is just as absolutely false as your claim that there are no transitional fossils.
You said: DNA studies have found most of the pre-human primate species were dead-ends, not transitional species, e.g. homo neandertalis. Thus, if the theory is failing, new theories must be formed. Clinging desperately to failing theories is not science, it is dogmatic
There are some fallacies attempting to create a link between two theoretical events. Denial of the antecedent is a form of argument that concludes a proposal isn’t true because it was implied by another proposal now proven to be inaccurate. A Christian could say, “The theory of evolution was dependent on modern man descending from Neanderthals. Since the Neanderthal descent hypothesis has proven to be false, the theory of evolution also fails.” While it’s true that scientists once speculated that Neanderthals could be ancestors of modern humans, by no means does this advancement in knowledge disprove the entire field of evolution.
Your claims about evolution are as false as any claims ever made on this Earth. If someone could disprove evolution they would become instantly rich, famous and win a Nobel Prize for science. The same thing would happen if someone could find hard evidence for the existence of God. The entire scientific community would welcome these new discoveries because it could then soak the taxpayers for all kinds of funding to study this new theory. The problem for creationists is this: Common descent is a fact not a theory. For example, there is no question that humans and apes share common ancestry. So any theory hoping to replace evolution must also explain the facts of common descent. Creationists refuse to accept the definition of a fact though. A fact is simply a widely held observation and it is a widely held observation that all life shares common ancestry.
You are a Bible believer, a member of the world’s most infamous anti-science cult of ignorance and stupidity that has fought against and denied every scientific discovery and theory ever made ever since the Bible was written. When has science ever had to revise one of its theories in the face of claims from Bible believers? And it isn’t just evolution you are denying either so cut that crap. You don’t believe in cosmology, geology, anthropology, zoology, cell theory, astronomy or any other science either. You get all your science from the hoaxers at the Discovery Institute, which gets a religious tax exemption from the IRS because they are a “non-scientific” organization. You are about as ignorant of science as a person can get. But you are a fundamentalist science denying creationist wacko. Par for the course.

My comment about the displayed Dead Sea scrolls was that they seemed to have been fabricated. They were in too-perfect condition and they used what looked like a really well-practiced modern Hebrew penmanship. It was just a little too much.
Then finding out about all the contemporary Aramaic documents, well….
I have profound respect for the Bible. I do believe there are those who would tell lies about it on both sides of the literalism issue. But I personally do not and just cannot honestly believe a lot of what we have is authentically “received.” Valuable, yes. Received, no.

My comment about the displayed Dead Sea scrolls was that they seemed to have been fabricated.
That’s what I thought you were saying.
I’ve just never heard that before.
I mean, I didn’t even suspect their authenticity was a contested issue and I think of men like Fitzmyer and Brown who have spent a good portion of their academic careers on these documents – or at least got their professional starts with them – don’t you would think they would know?
Well, you’ve given me yet something else to ponder!

MzEllen – warning cut & paste – it is too good to cut anything out
A Critical Thinker’s Guide to Reliable Information
by Dan R. Dick, Research Manager, General Board of Discipleship
In our society, we are barraged by “information,” some credible, some not so credible. In research, information is the key commodity. The most frequent question I am asked is, “How do you know what’s ‘true’?” First, people tend to confuse “truth” with “opinion.” Whenever information is shared that people don’t like, their normal response is to say, “Yes, but I read something that said just the opposite!” With so much competition for attention, how can we trust the veracity of any claim?
Here are seven “suggestions” (I would say rules, but that sounds too pushy) to keep in mind when encountering new information:
1. There is no such thing as unbiased information. The moment someone shares information, it is being used for a particular purpose. Take a moment to ask, “What does the provider of this information expect me to do with it?”
2. Trust what you agree with less than that with which you disagree. Most of us filter out what we don’t like and latch onto what makes sense to us. Our own personal bias intrudes. Don’t dismiss ideas you don’t like as “lacking a factual basis,” and don’t assume a sound base simply because you agree. Understand which side of an issue is presented, and be fair in assessing opposing views.
3. Look for footnotes. Granted, a footnote doesn’t prove anything, but the use of footnotes indicates that there are supplemental sources upon which an idea is based. Be suspicious of any work of non-fiction lacking footnotes. Research institutes use footnotes as a first line of fact checking. When footnotes are used well, they lend credibility to any argument. But . . .
4. Fact-check footnotes. If you find information that is persuasive or that you wish to quote yourself, then look up the primary source mentioned in the footnote. Not all footnotes are accurate. Ann Coulter filled her book, Treason, with footnotes, but later got in trouble because the majority of them were found to be erroneous. In her most recent book, How to Talk to a Liberal, she mended the problem by not using any footnotes at all.
5. Watch for confusion between “quotes” and “paraphrases.” It is poor practice to misquote, or nearly quote, information in a way that makes your point, but isn’t completely honest. Al Franken (Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) employs this tactic in his criticisms of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. Hence,
6. Understand the context. Just as with the Bible, don’t quote (or paraphrase) out of context. An author generally makes a claim in defense of a larger argument. When a single line or a part of a line is cited, it often distorts the original intention.
7. Demand a two-source minimum. If only one source exists to support a claim, leave it alone. Every author is entitled to an opinion, but much that we believe is factual is nothing more than a writer or pundit’s point-of-view. Love him or hate him — label him a propagandist — Michael Moore scores very high in veracity claims because of the number of supporting opinions from all sides he is able to cite. It’s one of the reasons he simply won’t go away — no one has yet credibly refuted his stuff.

Robert,
I can substantiate what you are saying about the lettering of the Dead Sea Scrolls. My family is Jewish and I can barely read ancient Hebrew but not modern Hebrew. I noticed that the lettering for YHWH is the same but everything else is different. You can go on the Internet and they show the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text side by side. You don’t need to read either to see the difference. This is the very reason that most of the findings and conclusions of the discovery of these scrolls was withheld from the general public for years after they were found. Some of the scrolls are in Greek and Aramaic too. Hmmmm…..
I also know about some of the scrolls being a little too-perfect condition but also there were thousands of fragments scholars had to piece together. Now these scrolls were not all found at once but rather they were discovered between 1947 and 1956. Isn’t it strange that the earliest discoveries were the fragments and then years later they magically find all these scrolls in the condition you describe? Obviously after the first find and all the hoopla over it someone “decided” if you will, to find a few more of these things one way or another. They aren’t real and this is very damaging to Christianity. But like everything else, the lack of any contemporary historical evidence for Jesus, Paul or any of the disciples for example, Christian apologists have been able to put up a smokescreen to hide these things from the general public.
But let’s say that they are actually authentic since at least the fragments probably are. They are still copies made from copies made from who knows how many other copies. What level of importance can be given to documents that are so revered yet so poorly cared for? Why would God allow such treasured documents to be stored in forgotten places and disintegrate into nothing? Something as important as the original biblical texts for the religion of an omnipotent God should easily withstand the test of time. But we don’t have any originals. Bart Ehrman pointed out that if God could perform the miracle of inspiring the Bible he could also perform the miracle of preserving it. The fact that the original texts were not preserved and even the most reliable copies are badly damaged would seem to indicate the miracle of inspiration wasn’t performed either.

Why would God allow such treasured documents to be stored in forgotten places and disintegrate into nothing?
I was going to say that you’re starting to sound like Ehrman.

Boris lies. Transition fossils are rare or nonexistent and the Dead Sea scrolls are compelling evidence that the Bible hasn’t changed. Sorry you’re so bitter about getting spanked in Catholic School Boris, let go of the hate, man.

ZZ said: Boris lies. Transition fossils are rare or nonexistent
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists–whether through design or stupidity, I do not know–as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled ‘Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax’ states: ‘The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.’”
Stephen Jay Gould,
Boris says: Sure. You’re calling all the biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists and human origins researchers and any other scientists who study this subject liars, not just me. Your cult leader Ken Ham has admitted that if transitional fossils do really exist the game is over for creationism. Well transitional fossils do exist and just saying they don’t is just a big fat desperate lie from people who know their religion is fading fast.
Scientists and educators are involved in this debate about science because they care about science education, not about winning an ideological war. In this, I can safely say, they are different from creationists. Even though most creationists are sincerely convinced of their positions, they are interested only in winning the ideological war. If evolutionary theory had no theological implications (say, like atomic theory), there would be no debate. This point is strangely missed by scientists, who continue to behave as if creationists were either lunatics or as if they needed to be rebutted on solid scientific grounds, after which they would go away.
People like ZZ actually believe that the reason they are having such a problem with evolution is that Satan is behind it. Yep, it was Satan who ZZ and the other creationists believe went around and hid all the evidence for creationism, it was Satan who destroyed Noah’s ark and the rest of the evidence that “should” support the stories in the Bible and it was also Satan who these people actually believe put the craters on the moon. So since Satan uses lies to distort reality the Christians think this is the only way to fight Satan, with lies. So while claiming all the while to have the truth, they accuse others of lying and feel perfectly justified in lying for the good of the Kingdom, lying for Jesus as per Romans 3:5.
I could give a list of transitional fossils or even a list of living species who are obviously transitional but we can observe transitions right under our noses:
Biologists have demonstrated, in a study of the songs and genetics of a series of interbreeding populations of warblers in central Asia, how one species can diverge into two. Their description of the intermediate forms of two reproductively isolated populations of songbirds that no longer interbreed is the “missing evidence” that Darwin had hoped to use to support his theory of natural selection, but was never able to find.
Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation. What it really demonstrated is the establishment of mating reproductive isolation (as yet incomplete) and genetic divergence reflected in measurable changes in body form. Thus, two of the three critical steps in the process of formation of new species has been and continues to be observed in these salmon.
ZZ said: and the Dead Sea scrolls are compelling evidence that the Bible hasn’t changed. Sorry you’re so bitter about getting spanked in Catholic School Boris, let go of the hate, man.
Boris says: My parents were Jewish, NOT Catholic ZZ. Proving the Bible hasn’t changed from copies made from copies made from who knows how many more copies does not make these copies historical narratives. They still have dialog in them, which proves they are fictive narratives and could in no possible way be historical narratives. Dialog is the hallmark of fiction. If we hold the Bible up to the exact same standards of literary criticism we would any other ancient literature it fails every test as being historical and passes with flying colors all the tests for fiction. Only when people accept religious dogma and nonsense and turn this collection of nonsense on its head can they believe in impossible old people, demons, angels, talking animals and vegetation, seraphs, Satan, Jesus, flying serpents, cockatrices, unicorns and the rest of the nonsense in the Bible. When we point out absurdities like Rev 7:1 where the Earth has 4 corners or where the sun either hurries across or gets stopped in the sky we are told that the in these spots the Bible doesn’t really mean what it actually says but what the Bible believers say it says. It’s all just too stupid!

“I mean, I didn’t even suspect their authenticity was a contested issue and I think of men like Fitzmyer and Brown who have spent a good portion of their academic careers on these documents – or at least got their professional starts with them – don’t you would think they would know?”
I’ll hasten to say I do not know enough to pass judgment on the scholarship of these two experts. But I will say that falsehoods, intentional and otherwise, find their way into scholarship all the time.
The way I deal with this in my own spiritual life is that I believe in God (you guessed, eh, Boris), but I believe God is greater than any book–and if there were a perfect record of God’s word, human beings would not seek Him. Or perhaps one might even say, people who believe they have a perfect record of God’s word don’t seek Him.

Just as an aside, Michelle, hope the fact you are blogging more means you are feeling better.

I’ll hasten to say I do not know enough to pass judgment on the scholarship of these two experts.
I suppose since Boris has invoked Ehrman, I can namedrop Metzger whose textual commentary on the GNT epitomizes the lack of preservation of the text. I mean, I mean, providing one accepts the critical NT text … and I don’t want to pick any fights with those who do not.
So how can men (mostly these are men) believe in the face of this?

Every Christian needs to go visit this site below. This is a very good book about the Dead Sea Scrolls and proves they are as phony as a three-dollar bill.
The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception – Baigentl & Leigh
what would it mean if the dead sea scrolls are fake … dead sea scrolls highly skilled fake forgery …. fake dead sea scrolls tv mini series …
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1255344/The-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Deception-Baigentl-Leigh – 715k -
Modern scientific studies of the Bible will bring and end to Christianity within twenty years. Look at the kinds of people who are left believing the Bible these days. You’ll find 95% of them living in trailer park squalor and the rest of them on stage at bone time or another on stage on the Jerry Springer show slapping the crap out of each other.

Boris, thank you for driving ever more lurkers to Christianity with your insane rantings as silly conspiracy theories. Will you actually be getting a job at some point? Didn’t think so.

ZZ
I can send you a whole bunch of letters from people who have thanked me for their de-conversions, one from a Presbyterian minister. I’ve deconverted over 100 people while you have NEVER been able to convince even one person to buy into the Christian system of retarded superstitions. ROFL! You are SUCH a desperate liar.

ZZ,
I don’t need a job ZZ because I own part of a business that makes me enough money to buy your house and burn it down and laugh the whole time.

ZZ I meant burn your trailer down. ROFL! I think your wife/sister is calling ZZ.

“So how can men (mostly these are men) believe in the face of this?”
Oh, you just do.
You recognize that your have naked faith and your preaching is foolishness and you do anyway.
You might do that because you’re afraid of hellfire. You might because you have the joy, joy, joy deep in your heart. But there is a transcendence even after we get rid of all that’s silly. And people like Boris actually do Christians a favor by helping them get rid of what’s silly. That is, unless they don’t.

Robert I would agree that most people still have some kind of spiritual hunger. You do and I don’t. But others are addicted and it’s like a drug or alcohol for them. You’re a recreational user or social drinker like most Christians and these fundies are the addicts. Below is a problem that atheists often present to Christians to prove to them just how completely brainwashed they are. You can find a version of this on the Internet which is where I found it. It’s not my brainchild and I have changed the wording a bit but it illustrates why some Christians can deny evidence staring them right in the face that their beliefs are false.
Suppose the world witnesses the descent of a great entity from the sky. This being proclaims that its name is God and the time for the world to end has finally arrived. Needless to say, most people are going to want to see proof of its claims. Whatever miracles one requests of God, he is happy to oblige. He has the power to make mountains rise and fall at will. He can set the oceans ablaze at the snap of a finger. He can even return life to those who died thousands of years ago. God can do anything asked of him. Then, someone from the gathered crowd makes an inquiry as to which religion holds the absolute truth. God replies, “The religion of truth is Islam. The Qur’an is my one and only holy word. All other religious texts, including the Bible, are entirely blasphemous. All those who don’t acknowledge my word will undergo a lengthy punishment for not following my teachings. Now is your chance to repent.”
What choice does the Christian community make in this situation? What would you do? This deity has already demonstrated that it possesses the omnipotence and omniscience of a supreme being. Do Christians readily switch over to the side of observable and testable evidence, or do they declare that this being is the Devil tempting their faith in God? Think about it for a minute because it’s an interesting predicament. I believe we all know that a good portion of Christians would denounce this new being in order to please “the one true God, Heavenly Father of Jesus.” As a result of their collective decision, the supernatural entity forces them to undergo unimaginable torment for a few weeks before offering them a final chance to repent. Do the Christians embrace the teachings of this creature after experiencing its capabilities firsthand, or do they still consider it the final test and refuse to denounce their faith in the Bible?
What exactly is the meaning of this example? No matter what level of sophisticated evidence contrary to their beliefs might be provided, some Christians will always find a way to set aside reasoned thought in favor of what they have always been thoroughly conditioned to believe. If Christians won’t accept the answers of such a powerful creature, how would they ever have the capacity to make informed and impartial choices based on evidence presented by their peers?

on the Internet which is where I found it. … “The religion of truth is Islam.
Yeah, you found it at The Onion ten years ago … Christ Converts to Islam.
Robert, I appreciate your answer … and quite agree.

To anybody still slogging through Boris’ inane rants, know that everything he is saying has already been refuted in any number of books, most of which were written decades or centuries ago. But since most of us have actual jobs and families, we don’t have the time to type all of it again on this blog. Just go to the library.
Also, By having the temerity and bad taste to actually MOCK Michelle when she got cancer, he has completely surrendered any credibility he had, and has jettisoned any hope that a reasonable person would listen to him. Atheism of the type he proposes is obviously only for bitter, twisted people like himself, and his own lack of character makes it impossible for him to package it palatably. Since he’s self-identified as a worthless troll whose only purpose is to disrupt, it makes his drawn-out posts all the more baffling. Only an utter loser would spend that much time typing just to annoy people.
This is my universal response to his posts.

Boris: Mois, a recreational user?
And I thought my only addiction was potato chips.
I of course see your point. And, frankly, I think I see Michelle’s. I don’t agree with either of you. I do respect both of your rights to write. But I don’t think a doctrinnaire and exclusive atheism is any improvement over a rigid, Bible-based Christianity (although it does strike me odd that we would be having this discussion in the comments section of this blog).

ZZ
ZZ made this desperate plea after seeing his religion proved false time and again: To anybody still slogging through Boris’ inane rants, know that everything he is saying has already been refuted in any number of books, most of which were written decades or centuries ago.
Boris says: Christian attempts at refuting criticisms leveled at the Bible, Christianity and Christianity’s anti-science dogma and nonsense that ZZ claims are on the Internet are nothing but ridiculous apologetic arguments that are easily shown false. Look at what I do to people stupid enough to try to challenge me with this Christian propaganda. Most of them have had to stop posting here because I humiliated them while I proved them to be wrong. Even ZZ is too gutless to challenge me after the intellectual beating I gave him. So that’s right ZZ. Tell everyone to ignore me. You have to because you know I’m telling the truth about your evil and false religion.

Robert,
There is no such thing as doctrinaire atheism. Atheism is a rejection of the man-made doctrine, dogma and nonsense less intelligent people make up about their deities. Atheists are simply more intelligent people who don’t believe what other less intelligent PEOPLE claim about their Gods. Theism, like Christianity for example, is simply what happens to ignorant frightened people when they let other PEOPLE pack their heads with stupid childish superstitions for which there is absolutely no evidence. I proved this with that essay about a deity coming to earth and Christians still rejecting all observable, testable evidence for a REAL God and instead still clinging to their imaginary God planted in their imaginations by other delusional morons. Christians are brainwashed and I’ve proved it.
Also I’m not trying to convert and fundamentalists to atheism. These types of people claim that people need God to be moral and if there were no God there would be nothing to keep these fundies from becoming evil and doing harm to others. So if the less intelligent among us need the fear of punishment from a magical boogy wizard to behave themselves so be it. Public safety is more important than my ideology. The fact that these Christers want to make abortion illegal proves that their ideology is more important to them than public safety because women get abortions at the same rate in countries where abortion is illegal as where it is legal. The difference is 186 women die every day in countries where abortion is illegal from botched procedures. THIS is the kind of holocaust Christian pray for every night.

Of course prayer doesn’t work. The proof of this is the fact that every night for the last 150 years millions of Christians have gone to their knees and prayed very hard to their boogyman to bring and end to the theory of evolution. But evolution is here to stay forever and will be the only explanation there ever w will be for the diversity of life on Earth. What more proof does one need that there is no God who answers prayers?

Oh, Boris, Darwin would be quite annoyed with that last statement. Even the theory of evolution evolves–punctuated equilibrium, for example.
A lot of what you call superstition I would call metaphor. I think the original story was probably lost–and it may have been helped along at various points by the “Christian” establishment. But I think there may be a great deal more to faith than religion will ever offer. I just see no reason to help God by hitting non-believers over the head with Holy Books.

Robert,
You are correct that the Theory of Evolution has evolved far away and is a thousand times better than Darwin’s first ideas. But that just shows how well established it is as a part of science now after 150 years or so. The Theory of Evolution can be used to explain and predict much more than it could in Darwin’s day. Creationist propagandists make the absurd claim that if any of Darwin’s ideas are incorrect then the whole theory fails. Of course the opposite is true but creationists are creationists because they are the most scientifically ignorant cult on the planet and always have been
As far as God and holy books like the Bible, if there is a God the Bible is most blasphemous book there is – accusing God of all sorts of ignorance, cruelty and atrocities. If there actually was a cosmic judgment I certainly wouldn’t want to be a Christian Bible believer.

“If there actually was a cosmic judgment I certainly wouldn’t want to be a Christian Bible believer.”
Ironically, the Bible records that Jesus said the same thing about the Fundamentalists of his time.

Robert the Bible doesn’t “record” anything. No one sat down and wrote any of the books of the Bible like say Steven Spielberg writes a novel. These stories were oral traditions that evolved over centuries and are captured frozen on parchment. Had they not been written down at that time but a few hundred years later or say a few hundred years earlier we would not recognize the stories. Adam had a wife named Lillith in one of the Jewish creation stories for example. The myth of the dying and resurrecting savior-king or god-man is as old as stories come in the ancient Near East. There’s no more reason to believe the stories about Jesus then there is the stories about Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, Demeter, Adonis or any other dying and rising demigod. They are equally lacking in objective evidence.

That speech was way better than anything I’ve ever heard come out of a creationist’s mouth