A win for evolution at CuriOdyssey!

77 thoughts on “A win for evolution at CuriOdyssey!”

1. //

   1. //

2. Listen boys and girls Climate changes all the time and always has. The earths climate is cyclical.

   1. Man made global warming is a hoax!!
   2. Climate change is real and always has been.
   3. The earths climate is cyclical ( it changes). Look up what the word cyclical means.
   4. Jesus is real
   5. The Bible is real
   6. The world wide flood was real
   7. The False teaching if evolution is wrong
   8. God is still on his throne

   John 3:16
   For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

   What’s the old saying? “Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.”

   The trouble is that Craig’s suicidal stupidity about climate is likely to take all the rest of us with him.

   1. Well he probably only gives the climate cycles 4,000 years to fit in! They are not so much cycles as catastrophic swings on that basis.

   2. The profundity of his ignorance is astonishing – “Man made global warming is a hoax” – no it is not Craig as you might realize if you bothered to read any of the MASSIVE amount of scientific literature on the subject.

      realthog, thanks for the Schiller quote! –
      “Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maid_of_Orleans_%28play%29

      1. “– “Man made global warming is a hoax” ”

         These sorts of statements are very satisfying to make, because that surge of self-righteous indignation sends frissons of belligerence through the body. But they tend to augment the emotion that impels the claim, leading to self-radicalization, a positive feedback loop. In this way, scientists move from being a group to be disagreed with to being a group of people without moral worth, justifying any hostile behavior directed towards them.

         I try to avoid similar statements, like “Creationists are morons”, because I find myself losing objectivity once I say such a thing. Nuance, accuracy, get lost.

         1. I love how creationists tend to quickly jump the rails and give an airing to all their pet conspiracies when dealing with scientists. It brings to mind something that the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast discussed in their latest episode about how people who believe in one medical conspiracy (e.g. vaccines cause autism) are likely to believe in many others (fluoride, pharma vs. natural cures, etc.). Once you’re convinced scientists are lying about one thing, it’s not much of a leap to assume they lie about every inconvenient fact.

   3. I will concede his claim number 5. Last time I checked the Bible certainly is a physical thing that actually exists.

      1. I’ll give him 2 and 3 as well – but not as supporting premises for 1.

   4. I read that Schiller quote in a book last night, and here it is cropping up again in my life. Just goes to prove there is a “God”.

      1. I first came across it as the source of the title of an Isaac Asimov novel, ‘way back when.

   5. 8. God is still on his throne

      Yes, He’s got it bad this time.

      Extremely old Goons joke.

      1. Jeoffrey is on the throne.

         1. The world’s most uncomfortable throne!

   6. In this part of the world, “throne” has another meaning. It is hard not to picture it when someone talks about sitting on one.

      1. In this part of the world, “throne” has another meaning.

         That was the point of the Goons’ joke.

      2. I thought the same! 🙂

      3. Yes, there’s one letter difference between that word and “sit.”

3. Congratulations, education triumphs over superstition again. The Craigs and Loris of the world will disappear as the current ones die out and are replaced by educated ones.

   It is amusing to see the twisted irrational thinking, especially from Craig.

   1. I picture Craig endlessly repeating his 8-point mantra in order to convince himself let alone anyone else. “God’s still on his throne” is a bit of an odd one though, isn’t it?

      1. Maybe he was getting confused with “Game of thrones” its easily done when you have a light grip on reality.

4. Nice condescension from Craig – sorry Craig, we understand “cyclical” but I think you need to look up “real”. Googling, “define: real” gives a good one:

   actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. “Julius Caesar was a real person”
   synonyms: actual, nonfictional, factual, real-life….

   Further, Craig says “The problem is you people put your religion (evolution) above all.” Ignoring the false equivalency of scientific fact and unfounded belief, no one is stopping religion – no atheists or scientist has asked for the removal of the freedom of religion. What has been asked for is to stop the preference of one religion (Christianity) over all religions. This works best if religion is not addressed in public at all. Lori should completely be behind these efforts.

5. If evolution is a religion, where are our tax exemptions?

   1. That’s a good one! Maybe we should get on that bandwagon. Hmmm.

6. I believe you would because you don’t want differing views so people can come to their own conclusion

   and

   It is a narrow minded view that you apparently want forced on everyone.

   Your creationist posters don’t seem to understand the basic situation. They seem to think you are creating or changing CuriOdyssey’s program, when in fact their program is exactly the same as it was before the sign issue. What you’ve done is asked them to stop implying that evolution is something bad/dangerous, and they have.

   Now, let me play devil’s advocate. I can see how a program might want to inform the public about some program content if they think it would affect a parent’s decision. This program is about reptiles. If, for example, your kid completely freaks out when he/she sees a snake, it would be nice to know beforehand if the program includes live snakes. The general principle is, its good and responsible public relations to let parents make an informed choice about what progams to send their kids to, and they can’t do that if they don’t know the content of the programs.

   Having said all that, the phrasing of that “warning sticker” was just awful and there are probably many much more positive ways to inform parents. As a purely illustrative example (my content may be completely wrong), you could put something on your website like this: ANIMAL CONNECTIONS. In this series of programs, CuriOdyssey takes your children on a historical and biological tour of our connection to the other animals on our planet, our common ancestry with them, and the evolutionary origins of many animal traits. Activities will include opportunities for “hands-on” interaction with animals (petting, holding, etc.), as well as Blah blah and blah. This week’s program focuses on Reptiles. Participants will be able to handle chameleons and frogs, and see other reptiles “in action” though a series of short videos. Total program length is 1 hour. Call Bob at 867-5309 for reservations.”

   THAT is how you inform parents about evolutionary content without making evolution into a “scare message.”

   1. Surely that should be “call Jenny …”

      1. +1

   2. No, no; they should have gone all-out:
      “WARNING: It is known by the state of California that you will learn something about evolution during this lecture!”

      That way it’s “edgy”…

      …do kids like edgy?

7. It’s a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.
   Plus,being described as”you people ” by an irate creationist is always enjoyable.

8. I also believe in the right to have whatever belief or non-belief a person wants. That said, attitudes of superiority like yours are simply insulting.

   This is a very common argument and tactic of people who infuse “spirituality” into conclusions.

   If you examine their thought processes you’ll often discover that they think that ALL our beliefs are basically expressions of who we are. Lifestyles, tastes, hopes, and dreams are jumbled up together with factual matters. Thus, there’s no “right” or “wrong” and nobody is any better than anyone else. Jerry’s belief in evolution is in the same category as his belief that his boots are cool or that cats are cute.

   And Lori is coming in and reminding the children that bullying will not be tolerated on the playground.

   It speaks of an almost narcissistic need to reduce all problems into personal problems. How old is the earth? It’s up to everyone to decide for themselves and respect choices. It looks like concern for others on the surface, but it’s horribly self-centered. Nothing matters but getting along and being nice.

   There goes all hope of human progress in knowledge. There goes the world.

   1. Yes re: getting along and being nice. I’ve seen how bad this can go in a corporation — I’ve worked for VPs and managers who put “the relationship” above all else. This means they’d complain that processes were wrong but when you presented how to correct the problem, they wouldn’t hold anyone accountable for running the process….so people did whatever they wanted. They also didn’t hold accountable bad employees so people who were incompetent or just ill suited to their current position, were told they were good workers.

      1. There is a lot of value in being forward-looking when trying to fix a current problem. I.e., not focusing on blame. From personal experience I can tell you that that is often the most effective coporate strategy to take. To a corporation, punishment is something equivalent to the sunk cost fallacy – its spending more resources down a hole that has already cost you a lot. Its much better to spend the resources ensuring that future wastes won’t occur (by, for example, training that employee on how to do their job right).*

         However, what you describe seems to be a case of some corporate officer not allowing fixes that have checks in place to prevent/discourage bad behavior in the future. Because the checks and balances might be judgemental. And that’s just silly.

         *If you think that this corporate forward-focus might contain a lesson for the US justice system, I would be inclined to agree with you.

         1. Yes, that was it exactly. Though, they sometimes played the blame game too (though no one was ever really “punished”) which had people endlessly pointing fingers or hedging their bets & avoiding risks.

            1. Yeah corporate officers can be just as (or more) petty and vindictive than us regular workers. A good boss puts a stop to blamestorming (without publicly assigning blame), a bad one joins in.

   2. “need to reduce all problems into personal problems”

      I suspect that’s how the “warning” came to be placed on the sign. So much pressure for everyone to be inoffensive comes at the expense of accomplishing anything.

      “Speak your truth” meets “teach the controversy”. Bleah.

      I’m glad the museum is changing the sign. I hope some visitors notice and thank them for it.

9. Maybe the TV series The Borgias needed a similar caveat.

   WARNING: Contains scenes of explicit Popery.

10. Yet another heroic deed by Professor Ceiling Cat!

    (Craig, go fuck yourself. XXOO)

11. Only tangentially on-topic, but I have to tell somebody:

    The local Presbyterian church has a signboard out front. I often get a different message than the one intended, as happened yesterday. The sign said:

    DON’T BE FOOLED BY THE WORLD
    JESUS IS THE ONLY TRUTH

    Perfect. That’s religion vs. science in a nutshell. Science: don’t be fooled by your biases and errors. Religion: don’t be fooled by reality and its evidence.

    The members are probably mostly nice people who do a lot of good things, but that sign shows me how far the human species is from what it could be, and makes me sadly doubt that we will ever get there.

12. This is relevant… Education does not happen without offendedness and exposure to new ideas. Pretending otherwise leads to some horrendous results.

    1. (Immediately after clicking I wondered if this is a “Da Roolz” violation. I hope not. Apologies if yes.)

       1. It’s borderline, but nonetheless a very interesting video.

13. Next, let’s get rid of all those posters at planetariums that say “May contain heliocentrism”. Oh, whoops. The religinuts don’t get bothered by that one so much any more.

14. “8. God is still on his throne”

    What’s wrong? Did he have a dodgy curry?

15. “Would you be offended if it said there will be some explanation of creationism.”

    Yes Craig, yes I would.

16. My take on a Missouri legislator’s efforts in that direction, and their possible ironic consequences:

    http://www.columbiatribune.com/opinion/oped/maybe-creationists-are-on-to-something/article_d362d486-aec6-11e3-b856-10604b9f6eda.html

    1. Fine satire, frank43, subtlety is a lost art

17. If you really think about the argument made by creationists that evolution is “just another faith,” it’s very revealing about their opinion of faith as being inferior to that of hard evidence.

    That’s the best they can do. Faith can’t beat science. It can only attempt to turn science into a competing faith claim. A bit of a funny scorched Earth tactic. “If I can’t win then we’ll both lose.”

    Well sorry, no. Science actually produces things. Tangible things.

18. “3. The earths climate is cyclical ( it changes). Look up what the word cyclical means.”

    Oh Craig, please don’t force me to look up big words like cyclical. OK, I’ll do you a deal. You look up how to use apostrophes and I’ll do my best to come to grips with what cyclical means.

19. “I believe in being educated and informed. I also believe in the right to have whatever belief or non-belief a person wants.” –“Lori serviss”

    I suspect that this is one way that many theists have of defending their right to believe certain things. But it misses the point entirely. Nobody is saying you don’t have the right to believe whatever you want. But I am saying that you SHOULD take personal responsibility for how you got those beliefs in the first place, once you are past the age of about 7-9 years. You should be willing to change your beliefs in the light of real evidence to the contrary, instead of doing what so many do, that is, dismiss or question any evidence that might call your beliefs into question. You say you don’t do the latter? That you are open-minded, free from prejudice? You say you have no assumptions? Better think again!

20. Congrats on another victory for science and reason. I am pleased the creationists are miffed. Your pwn-age of Lori serviss’ inane comment is a thing of beauty. How can she accept both the creation story and the fact of evolution? This degree of cognitive dissonance could be considered clinical.

21. Had to laugh. Whenever someone says “you people”, you know it isn’t going to be combined with a compliment.

    Kudos to Jerry and CuriOdyssey for the classy way they’ve addressed this issue.

22. If I may, I’d like to take a bit of an opposing viewpoint here. I’ll start by saying your letter was a polite way to communicate your views on the matter. But as an individual extolling the values of science, I think you are not being entirely fair.

    I certainly do not share the fundamentalist views on creationism that were likely the reason for that disclosure. I believe there is an overwhelming body of evidence that supports both evolution during the span of recorded human observation and evolution prior to that point. But I also challenge myself to consider the viewpoints of others and attempt to reconcile their viewpoints with observable fact. To my knowledge, the aspect of evolution that is most controversial is that “humans evolved from apes” (a shorthand that I realize is not a fully accurate description of the actual evolutionary process).

    So the question becomes, can I as a scientist, fashion an argument for humans not having “evolved from apes” that does not contradict an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests otherwise. And I think a scientist who asks himself that question with an open mind is capable of fashioning such an argument. When I personally went through this exercise years ago while playing the devil’s advocate, I forwarded a scenario where at some point prior to recorded human history a God could have created a universe in the state we as scientists believe it to be based on evidence. Such a scenario allows for an overwhelming amount of evidence to point toward human evolution from apes without it actually being accurate.

    Now, do I personally believe that is what happened? Absolutely not. Does it pass Occam’s razor? I don’t think so. But am I capable of dismissing its possibility with a defensible scientific position? No. And if I cannot take a defensible scientific position, I am certainly in no position to demand others share my stance.

    I get that you have dedicated your life to this field of research. It is part and parcel of who you are. As a result, I understand the strong objection you had to that disclosure. And that would be fine, except you seem to be holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself. It appears you are taking the stance that those who do not share your absolute views on evolution should be less sensitive given the context of a science museum. But as I went to great lengths to attempt to illustrate, there appears ample room to me for those who understand the scientific rationale for evolution without agreeing to the premise that “humans evolved from apes”.

    You were in a position to exercise the understanding you wanted from those with scientific curiosity and fundamentalist views. Instead you chose to criticize a science museum that is attempting to educate children with a sensitivity to minority beliefs. Regardless of what beliefs individuals hold, I feel there is tremendous value in scientific discovery. I find it a shame that a museum is being reprimanded for doing what was prudent to reach children of all beliefs without actually compromising the scientific content.

    1. There are all kind of strategies for promoting science and education. But accommodationist strategies are known for having been tried for decades with no documented results.

       I don’t think they work. And I note the museum doesn’t think they work either.

       But you are welcome to try. However, you are not welcome to try to shame people for trying other strategies.

       When I personally went through this exercise years ago while playing the devil’s advocate, I forwarded a scenario where at some point prior to recorded human history a God could have created a universe in the state we as scientists believe it to be based on evidence.

       That is a standard scenario called a “Last Thursday” scenario. It is tantamount to solipsism.

       But such ideas are obviously not scientific, they aren’t testable. In other words, they are Not Even Wrong.

       And that is why such ideas don’t contradict, they look like they mean something but they are in fact meaningless. There is a word for such sound bites now which should be applicable here, Dan Dennett calls them deepities.

       Can you as a scientist fashion such an argument? By your own words, you did.

       But can a scientist propose, support, work on and publish such an idea in peer review? No.

       1. As best I can tell, the disclosure was provided because there are individuals whose unfalsifiable beliefs increased their sensitivity on the topic of evolution.

          The entire point of my thought exercise was to present a situation where someone legitimately interested in honest scientific dialogue could be sensitive to absolute claims made about evolution (much like many here have shown a sensitivity to the inclusion of the disclosure).

          To better serve the mission of educating children, the museum decided to make a disclosure regarding the content of the presentation based on previous visitor feedback. This was done without compromising the content of the presentation. I fail to see why the museum should be criticized for its sensitivity and tolerance.

          1. What do you mean by “absolute claims”? There is overwhelming evidence supporting human evolution as described by science;so overwhelming that (paraphrasing Stephen Jay Gould) it would be perverse to think otherwise. This isn’t absolutist, it’s the truth. It is as true as when I get up off the couch, I won’t float up to the ceiling.

       2. That is a standard scenario called a “Last Thursday” scenario.

          Or the omphalos argument.

    2. But as I went to great lengths to attempt to illustrate, there appears ample room to me for those who understand the scientific rationale for evolution without agreeing to the premise that “humans evolved from apes”

       Firstly, it’s a little inaccurate or at least a little confusing to say that “humans evolved from apes”. Humans evolved from a common ancestor they share with apes.

       I’m not to sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that because you can imagine in a Russell’s Teapot way that humans could not evolve from apes, that there should be greater accommodation to such beliefs? Or that we should accommodate those beliefs that accept any kind of evolution but reject the ape part?

       The problem with any of this (if that is what you are arguing) is it is all completely, utterly false. There is no doubt that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor as evidenced not only in the fossil record but also in our DNA. To suggest that we ought not to mention such things in polite company for fear we may offend those that do not believe it, only encourages falsehoods being considered on equal footing with truths.

       1. Nitpick: it’s not that we’ve evolved from apes; it’s that we are apes — great African plains apes, to e specific.

          And whilst on the subject…in the same sense that we’re also mammals and vertebrates, we’re monkeys and fish as well. But the “ape” designation is not historical in that sense; there is no way to cladistically group the other great apes without also including humans. If you accept that chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are all great apes, you must also accept that humans are great apes.

          Cheers,

          b&

          1. Yeah true but I wanted to distinguish the evolution from a common ancestor since you get the “why are their still apes silliness”

       2. At no point did I advocate for a suppression of open scientific dialogue. I merely advocated for tolerance when a museum attempts to accommodate a minority viewpoint without compromising the integrity of the discussion. The example was provided to simply illustrate that one could object to certain claims around evolution without forwarding bad science.

          As for the inaccuracy of the statement that “humans evolved from apes”, there is a reason I used quotation marks and specifically included this note in my first usage:

          “(a shorthand that I realize is not a fully accurate description of the actual evolutionary process)”

          1. The example was provided to simply illustrate that one could object to certain claims around evolution without forwarding bad science.

             But rejecting human evolution because this ape thing is incompatible with religious revelation is exactly forwarding bad science. It is just plain wrong and shouldn’t be indulged.

    3. But am I capable of dismissing its possibility with a defensible scientific position? No.

       Seriously? Are you unable to dismiss the view that the donkey is the special creature on earth, placed here by God in the midst of horses and zebras, but having no common ancestor with them?

       You either have what I would consider to be unrealistically high expectations of what is sufficient evidence for belieiving without a reasonable doubt that humans and modern apes having common ancestors, or insufficient knowledge of the fossil and genetic evidence available.

    4. “…except you seem to be holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.”

       This is nonsense. If human evolution were not involved or there were no religious origin myths to dispel, there would be no debate about human and other primates havng oommon ancestors. It would be regarded as bloody obvious on the basis of current evidence. What you are doing is holding religiously-motivated trolls to a lower standard of hypothesis-rejection than anyone else.

       1. Also, for clarification the quote regarding standards did not pertain to the scientific evidence. It was referencing the nature of the response to the situation.

          Jerry seemed to suggest that those who held different beliefs regarding evolution should be less sensitive. I was stating he was also in a position to simply ignore a disclosure that was obviously intended for those who held different beliefs than he did.

          Given the nature of his work, I understand why he had the reaction he did. But I think it is unfair that he expected others to ignore a topic they are passionate about when he was unable to ignore it himself.

          1. Okay, Mike, you’ve said the same thing over and over again, so you needn’t repeat yourself. I disagree with you because this is a Museum that presents science, and shouldn’t cater to those whose superstitions make them resist well established scientific truths. Do you want all museums that have evolution in their exhibits to have warning labels over the entrance? Sorry, but we needn’t cater to these silly antievolution views. Besides, are those people so sensitive that they have to have “trigger warnings” on talks lest they be offended. That’s ludicrous.

             Finally, my acceptance of evolution is not a different “belief” from religion; it’s not a “belief” in the religious sense at all. It’s a scientific fact supported by evidence that is so strong that only the blinkered (or those who haven’t seen the evidence) could reject it. We’re not dealing with different “beliefs” here; we’re dealing with truth versus superstition.

             And you’ve had your say.

    5. “…But am I capable of dismissing its possibility with a defensible scientific position?…”

       That’s just silly. You would do it or you wouldn’t be able to function in the real world. As mentioned above, you are just raising the “last Thursday” scenario. Are you telling me you wouldn’t dismiss this if someone held it seriously?

       1) You work for the phone company. A customer calls and says he is not paying. The world was created last Thursday with a computer with your billing system with all the bits set just right to say that he used all those minutes. He didn’t really use them though. Would you say it was fine that he not pay?

       2) You tell your teenager to clean their room. They say the world was created last Thursday, complete with memories and a birth certificate saying that they are your child. But they aren’t so you have no authority over them. You would therefore agree that they don’t have to do anything that you say.

       3) You confront your spouse about having an affair with the neighbor. They claim it is not a problem since the universe was only created last Thursday, complete with your marriage certificate. Since you never really were married, they can do what they want.

       The point is, while you can’t absolutely prove the universe wasn’t created last Thursday, no one actually takes it seriously enough to act like it is a possibility. And if you still claim that you do, I would like to borrow a large sum of money from you. I will pay you back, with a lot of interest, next Friday. I’ll even write and date an IOU.

       1. I am saying I cannot scientifically disprove the claim. It is unfalsifiable.

          Now there is no reason to introduce unfalsifiable claims into scientific discussion. But there is room to have a legitimate scientific discussion with two parties that hold different unfalsifiable beliefs. Those discussions require some level of tolerance though.

          1. Evolution is eminently falsifiable; there are lots of observations that COULD disprove it, though none have.I’ve posted about this before. Your saying this shows that you have no idea of how science works. Evolution is neither a “belief” nor is it “unfalsifiable.”

             I’m sorry,but this is perilously close to trolling. So do not post any further on this thread. You’ve said what you have to say–five times over.

             1. A-men! 🙂

                BTW, which of Da Roolz is most often flouted? IMO Rool 7 probably ranks high…

                “Try not to dominate threads, particularly in a one-on-one argument. I’ve found that those are rarely informative, and the participants never reach agreement. A good guideline is that if your comments constitute over 10% of the comments on a thread, you’re posting too much.” -Professor Ceiling Cat

             2. Evolution is eminently falsifiable; there are lots of observations that COULD disprove it, though none have.

                Just one particularly compelling example; DNA analysis is very new. It could have been the case that, just as DNA analysis has rewritten certain branches of the evolutionary family tree, it instead could have thrown the entire thing into absolute chaos. Indeed, that was a prime moment for Creationism to have been demonstrated credible: if every species, or at least every Biblical “kind” (baramin, whatever) had an entirely different genetic structure from every other, that would have strongly indicated that, yes, indeed, all the species had their own independent origins and the other morphological and other familial resemblances were merely superficial.

                That, of course, is not what we actually discovered. Rather, the DNA has not only confirmed what we already knew about common ancestry, it’s provided the most detailed and clearest picture yet of the universal family tree — such that future advances in genetic analysis might even permit the independent reconstruction of ancestral genomes, and possibly even gain insights into ancient physiology and morphology and the like.

                That’s what falsification would look like. If Evolution is true, the genetic material should share the same familial relationships as had been established through other means. We found that to be true. Any other finding would have invalidated, would have falsified, the theory.

                At this point, the evidence is so overwhelming that we can have extreme confidence that Evolution will never be invalidated, just as we can have extreme confidence that Newtonian Mechanics will never be invalidated at human scales. There may well be some future discovery or insight that leads us to an understanding that perhaps even radically differs from today’s, but — and here’s the key bit — that new understanding would “reduce” to modern evolutionary theory for the current set of data in exactly the same way that both Quantum and Relativistic Mechanics “reduce” to Newtonian Mechanics at human scales. That is, you can use any of the three theories to predict where a potato launched from a cannon will land and get the same answer — but you’ll do a lot less work if you use Newton. Similarly, any new biology would only be usefully applicable at some domain not yet covered by modern biology.

                The thing is, even despite all the excitement in the popular press about epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer and the like, there’s no reason yet to see those phenomena as comparable to the precession of Mercury’s orbit or the double slit experiment. Maybe life works differently in non-Terrestrial biospheres, and maybe we’ll someday discover one and be able to investigate it…but the smart money is on On the Origin of Species remaining as valid into the future as it is today, at least for life on Earth. (With a caveat that Darwin only got things overwhelmingly right, but not perfectly right; he did make some mistrakes, but not many, and not about the important bits.)

                Cheers,

                b&

          2. It’s been covered on this site (and elsewhere) many times before. Science doesn’t prove anything. You can only prove things in math and formal logic. But the point of my post above is that you may reach a confidence level that something is not true such that you would never seriously consider acting on the possibility.

    6. I forwarded a scenario where at some point prior to recorded human history a God could have created a universe in the state we as scientists believe it to be based on evidence

       As soon as you say “then a miracle occurs” you’re no longer in the realm of science.

23. Science museums can be lots of fun for adults as well as children. Next time I’m in the Bay Area, I’ll try to remember to make a point of visiting CuriOdyssey, myself.

    b&

24. Wow Craig, so many assertions and so strongly asserted, where’s the evidence to back it all up? Take notice I am not asking you to prove what you’ve asserted. That would be silly proof is a very high standard to reach, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Nope, I would only like you to point out some unambiguous evidence for your claims. Because as most readers here know—and I’m quoting Christopher Hitchens; –that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.–another beauty left to us by David Hume and Carl Sagan;–extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have offered nothing but silly, childish, and easily dismissed claims. You might impress the credulous with grandstanding but here you will only garner a face palm.

    I am however going to cut you a little slack—the bible is indeed real. I use several of them for drink coasters, would want to moisture stains on my packing crate end tables. Jesus, I often eat lunch with him, and his cousin Ernesto and sister Araceli. You also assert that the false teaching if (of) evolution is wrong. Yes, teaching that evolution is false is just plain wrong. Perhaps a Freudian slip there Craig? That’s probably why Ceiling Cat has gifted us with his word: Why Evolution Is True.

    And to Lori– you are entitled to your opinion however, not all ideas are equal. This is the 21st century and you’re invited to take part in it. There is much better fiction to read than the christian bible.

25. ‘Look up what the word cyclical means.’
    He clearly just has.

26. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ – Mark 10:6

    What about the non-trivial number of children born with either multiple sets of genitalia, or ambiguous genitalia.
    Oh, sorry, God-squaddies out of contact with reality. Again. Or still.

27. The only difference between ignorance and stupidity is time!

Comments are closed.