River Valley Blogs

harsch wrote on Apr 22, 2008 3:54 PM:

" I forgot to add that the legalistic framing of the KWK post is that at worst what he said is inadmissable as hearsay. By the way, though I don't expect anyone to care I am bot anti-science and anti-religion. And, more importantly, the only reason I don't post from work is that my school has bought me a laptop and a stationary computer for my home and so I spend little time at the office. Those of you who do post from work are to be congratulated for having at least that benefit in a working universe in which benefits are rapidly dwindling. "

harsch wrote on Apr 22, 2008 12:35 PM:

" Libeled? "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 22, 2008 9:14 AM:

" Come on Harsch, you must see how funny it is that W came in, libeled our good friend Kenneth, and then took his leave with the parting shot "I certainly don't publish..." as if he is above this type of thing. Yes, I was truly hurt by his attitude, and would like some sympathy. I also think your trusting nature is cute and charming in that you are so sure this W is being truthful and doesn't post here under a different moniker. "

The Real Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 22, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Okay, okay, I definitely see the humor. Harsch, you are right, this is quite amusing. Planet Stasiak is hilarious. Definitely an odd situation people are having fun with. We can only hope we never hear from "W" again. The one or 2 short posts he did post included at least one outright lie. "Loose language" is very kind indeed. I have no doubt he meant to convey that I am anti-science. You are always quick to point out to Jimmy and correct people when posts are falsely attributed to you-and rightly so. I was only doing the same. "

harsch to jimmy wrote on Apr 22, 2008 3:47 AM:

" the april 21 5:09 post is not from me. "

Harsch wrote on Apr 21, 2008 5:09 PM:

" If you want to blog while at work, become a college professor like me. "

Harsch wrote on Apr 21, 2008 4:54 PM:

" This Double-Kraus business is some of the funniest stuff I've ever read on this blog. This fellow writes in to distinguish himself from someone with the same name, quite plausibly states he heard about this odd circumstance from someone he works with, kindly responds to those who bothered to leap all over him by saying he doesn't post, so, in effect, kindly says goodbye, and, funniest of all Planet Stasiak is hurt. Sensitive fellow. Krause the W used loose language in saying that Krause the NMN wrote--he heard--anti-science stuff. Obviously he meant it in the context of the evolution debate. Lots of [ ] quick to jump all over him. And, the punch line, the guy really doesn't care and won't be heard from again. Thanks for the laughs. "

To 1:22pm wrote on Apr 21, 2008 4:51 PM:

" Come on, you ARE Midwest Atheist, aren't you?
"

Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 21, 2008 4:31 PM:

" My, my, my, but aren't we all high and mighty and above this sort of thing? W "doesn't read blogs and certainly doesn't publish in them." Well, pardon us for even taking up any of your time. Time which could be better spent writing letters to the editor begging for tips for furniture movers and begging people to join your book club. And, I suppose your co-worker tipped you off again to cause you to come back and post again? Where do you guys work anyway, that they allow you to read and post on blogs while on the clock? Maybe you were the one that messed up my double cheeseburgers last night. That was 2 double cheeseburgers with extra cheese-nothing else on them. Why is that so difficult? "

Re War of the Krauses wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:27 PM:

" Is Kenneth W that goof that was a public defender in New Mexico at one point? Seems he also wrote some meaningless letter to the editor published in the Tribune regarding some guy moving furniture next door to his house, and another one wanting to start a book club. His letters are usually meaningless drivel, if this is the right one. Something just hit me...I think 11:28am hit the nail on the head. Midwest Atheist---free thinkers club. Kenneth W---book club. Putting 2 and 2 together...could it be? Reviewing books for the FFRF.... "

Kenneth W. Krause wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:22 PM:

" I don't read blogs and I certainly don't publish in them. A co-worker who does read this blog tipped me off, so I checked it out. Thanks folks. That's all that I wanted. Have at it. "

To Kenneth W wrote on Apr 21, 2008 11:28 AM:

" You expect us to believe, after probably months of Kenneth Krause posting here, you all of a sudden had the urge to set the record straight? That you had never seen his postings before and just happened to stumble upon this week old blog this last Sunday morning? You must post here yourself since you enjoy discussing evolution in the print media....be honest. What name have you been posting under? Midwest Atheist? "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 21, 2008 10:32 AM:

" I did a quick google of Kenneth W Krause. As expected, I found nothing. He must be a troll trying to stir things up. My first clue was when he accused the real Kenneth Krause of posting anti-science comments, which is absolutely ridiculous to those familiar with his postings. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:33 AM:

" Another thing, "W", I never have nor ever will post anti-science comments on this or any other blog. I am very pro-science. So, unless there is a 3rd Kenneth Krause, I am not sure what you are referring to. Your remarks border on slander-you should be careful of that, particularly as a supposed esteemed writer. If your real name truly is "Kenneth W Krause", you may want to start using an alias. "

Kenneth Krause to Kenneth W Krause wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:26 AM:

" You are kidding, right? This is just too weird! Did you happen to attend Mentons conference at UWL a couple years ago? It seems that someone who "regularly publishes in print media regarding evolution" would not have missed a local event such as this. "

to Kenneth W. Krause wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Kenneth NMN Krause didn't post "anti-science comments" but science based comments. Just because you don't agree with Kenneth NMN Krause as to where the science points, doesn't make his statements "anti-science."
As a side note, are you the Kenneth W. Krause that reviews books for Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Skeptical Inquirer? It says you were a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney with degrees in law, history, literature, and fine art. If that's so, then what makes you an authority on what is or is not Science? "

Kenneth W. Krause wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:50 AM:

" I'm writing only to distinguish myself from a different "Kenneth Krause" who has apparently posted anti-science comments on this blog. I hope that Kenneth will use his middle initial, whatever it is, to distinguish himself from me, if for no other reasons, because I regularly publish in print media regarding evolution and because the other Kenneth's views on evolution are far different from mine. "

Planet Stasiak to 4:45pm wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:10 AM:

" You are wrong. My family were all non-believers who rejected Christianity and any type of religion. I came to faith in God, then Christ, as an adult after studying many different religions and theories of our origins. "

Dear Harsh wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:33 AM:

" No. "

harsch wrote on Apr 19, 2008 8:09 AM:

" First, cuneiform, not cuniform. Second, wouldn't God, by definition, be an alien? "

Dear Odin wrote on Apr 18, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Who made the aliens? As you can see, making up an alien creation doesn't solve the issue, it only adds another link between us and our Ultimate Creator. "

Dear Planet S wrote on Apr 18, 2008 4:45 PM:

" Of course you do. You never studied the Cuniform teachings repeatedly when you were young.....How many bad guys did Samson kill with the jawbone of an anss? "

RE: Brian is angry wrote on Apr 18, 2008 4:43 PM:

" Actually...I wanted Berlusconi to win. He's a cad but also an extremely succesful businessman and one of the few capable of steering italy in the right direction. He has his faults....ain't no Padre Pio's running for office these days. Italy's "left" sucks......they suck as bad as the right sucks in the US. Luckily for the USA the Europeans are spending their powerful and rising currency in America. "

To Odin wrote on Apr 18, 2008 4:41 PM:

" I disagree. See Planet Stasiaks post. No one is saying those are the only 2 theories, but they are certainly the most talked about. The Gospels are more historically reliable than anything alleging aliens created all life. The evidence for Christianity(outlined in Josh McDowells book "Evidence That Demands A Verict") eclipses that of your silly theory regarding aliens. For this reason, I see my theory as much more valid than yours. As do most educated people in this country. "

Odin wrote on Apr 18, 2008 3:09 PM:

" New genetic information is not required for evolution. The bulk of evolutionary changes are the product of gene switches. Gene switches are keys that enable old genes to be used in new ways.

I don't think you people understand MA when he says that the "problems" with evolution doesn't make Intelligent Design anymore valid. It's not like they are the only two theories. Me saying that aliens created all life on earth is just as valid as your theory that God made everything. There isn't any evidence that lends one to believe one way or the other. "

Brian is angry because wrote on Apr 18, 2008 1:29 PM:

" in Italy Berlusconi defeated Walter Veltroni's "Democratic Party". The big news is that the Communists are gone, for the first time since the end of the Second World War. Really gone. They didn't win a single seat in either chamber. A lot of famous faces will vanish from Parliament, and it is even possible, although unlikely, that some of the comrades will be forced to join the working class. The Greens are also gone. In fact, there are only six parties in the new Parliament, suggesting that Italy's well on the road to a two-party political system instead of the dreadful proportional electoral model that has destroyed virtually every country where it's been applied. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:54 AM:

" I respectfully disagree that the Sumerian cuniforms are as historically reliable as the Gospels, which is probably why most educated people in this country are Christians, and most educated people in this country do NOT believe aliens are influencing and engineering our lives. "

BrianGSmith wrote on Apr 18, 2008 3:05 AM:

" Saying you are a "christian" and actually living the life Christ advised are generally two different things. Many 'mericans say they are Christian but I'll bet my last dollar more than half of those couldn't even tell you the basic tennents of Jesus' ministry. Prime example is or shameful pResident who hides behind the robe of Jesus while committing great cardinal sins across the globe and here at home. If most 'mericans are Bush-league christians I fear the Nation is doomed. "

RE:To Brian G Smith - Apr 12, 2008 7:09 PM: wrote on Apr 18, 2008 2:59 AM:

" I was asked...."What evidence do you have of aliens influencing and engineering our lives?". I would respond by saying there's just as much proof or more that "aliens" manipulated humans than there is of the "biblical' god's influence. Begin with the Sumerian cuniforms and their recordings of 'history' and space aliens descending upon earth to alter and mingle with the human race. This Sumerian story is closely echoed in the Old Testament stories...Adam and Eve being the products of the alien genetic modification. The "Tale of Gilgamesh"....the "Book of Ezekial".....just some of the ancient dialogue that addressed space aliens influencing our humanity. - BrianGSmith
"

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 17, 2008 8:47 AM:

" No, MA, my parents never let me in on the secret of Santa Claus. Nor do I believe in Bigfoot, or any of your other ridiculous examples. My faith in Christ is a reasoned faith based on the evidence I have examined, much being the evidence put forth by Josh McDowell in "Evidence That Demands A Verdict". To say people would still believe in Santa Claus if their parents had not let them in on the secret is, frankly, idiotic. "

to midwest atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:47 PM:

" you are being intellectually dishonest. evolution does study effects to determine the cause. evolutionary scientists in this area study frog deformities to attempt to determine their cause and what the deformities will do to future generations. however, to draw an imaginary line at not looking at life's ultimate origins is you simply trying to fool yourself. in the case of frogs we see no frogs mutating into anything with more genes or anything greater then the original frog. when you look at the "effect" of a healthy frog and try to determine the "cause" the made non-life chemicals and materials become a frog or tadpole, you realize that there is NO proof for evolutionary origins or species evolving into anything else. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 5:12 PM:

" I ignored Ken's examples because they were irrelevant and false. "no self-reproducing original life form"- Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is concerned with what happens to life forms that are here, it doesn't even attempt to explain how they began to self-replicate. Neither does the theory of gravity, so what? Saying, "we don't know," is the intellectually responsible thing to do in this situation, not respond with, "Magic Man Doneit".
"no information adding mutations"- Wrong. Every mutation that is expressed by protein or RNA is information added. Sometimes it's harmful, sometimes it's beneficial, much of the time it's neutral. For instance, to make this claim, you would have to say that bacterial resistance to every future antibiotic would have had to be present billions of years ago when god created the first bacteria. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 5:08 PM:

" Your annalogy is flawed- people don't believe in Santa because their parents eventually let them in on the secret. If all of society supported Santa belief, and parents continually reinforced it weekly by taking you to 'Santa church,' then absolutely people would believe in Santa through adulthood. Rational people can be convinced of absolute nonsense relatively easily (look at cults). And given good reason, I absolutely would stop believing in evolution. That evidence would have to be extremely compelling in order to overthrow the mountains of evidence for evolution, but I could think if many, many examples. The proverbial rabbit from the precambrian would do it, or any other such find. If such anomalies existed, and if Noah's flood actually happened, the geological column should be filled with these occurences. "

Planet Stasiak to Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:05 PM:

" It doesn't matter whether most people are theologians or philosophers. That is irrelevant to my point. Also, I did not state that most people in this country are Christians(although that is true). I stated most educated people(college degree or higher)in this country are Christians. I reject your assertion that this is the case because most people are simply holding onto what they were taught as children. If that were the case, most educated people in this country would believe in Santa Claus or the eater Bunny. I also reject your assertion that you would change your view if given good evidence that evolution were not true. Kenneth Krause gave you this evidence in a nutshell yesterday at 8:53am(the whole no self-reproducing original life form and no information adding mutations thing). Funny thing is, not only did you not change your view, you ignored it all together. Too funny. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:02 PM:

" Most people in this country may be Christians, but studies show the more someone is educated, the less likely they are to be religious. Also, most people in this country are not theologians or philosophers. They simply hold onto what they were taught when they were children. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:02 PM:

" You can't prove the holocaust (the execution of 6 million Jews) happened, in fact the stance of some governments (ie Iran) is that it never happened. You can't prove the earth is round, there are many who still believe it is not. Any pictures that "prove" it is are simply part of the government's conspiracy. There is no religion for evolution, that is just nonsense. If there was good evidence supporting an alternative view, or disproving evolution (of which there could be many, many examples), than I would change my view, as would every descent scientist. Why would we clutch to evolution if it wasn't justified? There are no promises to an afterlife by doing so, like you get to claim by holding on to your dogma. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:27 PM:

" Bad examples. The Holocaust can be proven. As can the shape and movement of the earth. The cause of our origins can not be proven. Of course some scientists have a vested interest in evolution. It is their religion. Why do you think that young man suffered a breakdown at UWL when Menton was refuting evolution? Many scientists are intellectually dishonest, and cling to evolution at all costs. Some scientists are willing to challenge the status quo, and that does not make them crackpots. You using that term to describe scientists such as Menton weakens your position, as it shows that you can't accept the fact that reasonable people can and do disagree. Also, it is compelling that most educated people in this country are Christians, whether you wish to admit it or not. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:14 AM:

" Ken, you are correct in saying there is a scientific "debate"- only if by "debate" you mean a handfull of crackpots vs everyone else. If you think that there is a scientific debate about evolution, then you must also concede that there is a scientific debate as to whether the holocaust happened, the shape and movement of the earth, whether UFOs abduct people, Bigfoot's existance, etc. Also, making the arguement from numbers of biologists who accept evolution is not the same as saying number of lay people who are christian. Scientists have no vested interest in accepting evolution. They examine the evidence, and go where it leads. So it is compelling when 99% of the most qualified individuals to have an opinion on the matter come down on one particular side. The evidence is that compelling. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:47 AM:

" MA, for you to state there is NO debate in the scientific community is simply false. I have spoken to Dr David Menton in person, and he does "debate" your assertion. And, I find it highly doubtful that I spoke to the ONLY credentialed scientist in the world that believes this. Another poster granted you that MOST scientists may agree with you. But, that is not proof they are correct, anymore that the fact that most educated people(college degree or higher) in this country are Christians is proof of Christianity. You must examine the evidence itself. I am sorry it is upsetting to you that some find the evidence against evolution more compelling than the evidence for, and that people like Josh McDowell do put forth a rational, reasonable basis for their faith. Anyway, good luck to you. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:03 PM:

" For those of you who still think that there is still some sort of controversy in the scientific community as to whether or not we share a common ancestor with other primates, here's a video of a guy who did the footwork and tracked down the 101 scientists who supposedly signed the Discovery institute's list of scientists skeptical of Evolution: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM There is NO debate in the scientific community. "

re: Midwest atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:30 PM:

" I tried to post links to sites with answers to your questions, but Jimmy's blogs apparently block it. You can find answers at many Creationist or ID sites, but I'll give you a couple. Ideacenter.org, truthorigin.org, creationism.org. Your "proofs" have been answered with science by Creationists an Intelligent Design scientists. You just have more faith in the evolutionist response then the Creationist/IDers response. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 15, 2008 4:52 PM:

" MA, you crack me up. I don't think anyone of faith has ever stated God can be proven. And with no proof of God, of course there can be no proof prayers are answered-after all, proof of answered prayers would be a proof of God. Most people base their faith on evidence of some sort. Some require more evidence than others. Josh McDowell wrote a book referenced on these blogs called "Evidence That Demands A Verdict". McDowell was a skeptic who examined the historical evidence for and against Christianity, and became a Believer after doing so. There is a difference between evidence and proof. But, you knew that, didn't you? "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 4:44 PM:

" You were the one to make the assertion that prayers don't get answered. The counterarguement is that every prayer is answered. There would be no possible way to prove either assertion. That is the point your responder was making. There would be no way for a scientific study TO determine if prayer influenced an event. It is simply impossible to prove or disprove. Because of your worldview, you believe no prayer has been answered. Because of my worldview, I believe every prayer is answered. Neither of us can prove our position one way or the other. "

Wake up, people! wrote on Apr 15, 2008 2:35 PM:

" Midwest Atheist is a troll presenting an unflattering but accurate portrayal of the atheist worldview. He is menacing people on the Holmen paper's Star Hill blog making false assertions regarding the Constitution. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 1:49 PM:

" Now that I've reassembled my skull, let's see... Gee your god has a pretty good gig. He actually never has to do a single thing, just leave everything up to chance, and he gets credit. If you pray for a raise and get it- your prayer was answered, Praise be to god! If you don't get the raise- it was not god's will, Praise be to God! If I pray to Allah- same success rate. If I pray to Ganesh- same success rate. If I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster- same success rate. Ramen! The Great Noodly one has blessed me! The fact is there is absolutely no reason to think that act of praying has ever influenced an event. It has failed miserably in every scientific study. "

Planet Stasiak to Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:57 PM:

" Sorry, the fact that people who hold associate degrees in biology disagree with Dr Menton doesn't impress me. I still find the evidence against evolution more compelling than the evidence for. "

Logic 101 to Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:19 PM:

" I would have loved to try that one on my parents. "Dad, can I go to the beach?" "No, son." Then I would head off to the beach, come back, and when he asked me why I disobeyed say "You never answered me." Midwest Atheist, I think you should have taken some logic classes in high school(I am guessing no college for you?). "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:11 PM:

" MA, do you know what UWL offers as far as biology degrees? I am asking because I sincerely do not know. How about the PROFESSORS that questioned him at Mt Hood? What was their degree? I mention UWL and Mt Hood because those are 2 of the places I happen to be aware of. There could have been others. But, that is irrelevant to my position, as I am more impressed with the evidence someone offers than the letters behind their name. But, if you are into the letters, Menton certainly has those also. "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:05 PM:

" I probably won't be getting a reply, as your head is now probably gone. Seriously, explain the "sheer stupidity" comment. You failed to name a prayer that wasn't answered. A "no" answer is not the same as "no answer". Do you seriously not see this? "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:45 AM:

" "Name me one prayer(by a Christian you know or know of) that hasn't been answered"- This is quite possibly the easiest question ever asked. I only have to go back about a few weeks to recall the 14 year old girl with diabetes because her parents chose to pray for her to get better. She died. Prayer not answered. And if you say that their prayer was answered, but the answer was, "No," I swear my head will explode from the sheer stupidity of your counterargument.
Re: Dr Menton- did you say that the debate was at a Mt Hood community college? No wonder he picked this location for a debate. The college doesn't offer any biology degree higher than an Associate's. What a worthy location for such a brilliant orator. "

Planet Stasiak to Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:15 AM:

" I watched your videos, and I am sorry but I am not convinced. I still find the evidence against evolution(no information-adding mutations or self-reproducing life forms)much more compelling than the information for. So do many scientists. Sorry you disagree. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Contrary to what you may think, I have read tons of material by the leading evolutionists, including Dawkins, Darwin, and many others. Darwin himself acknowledges in Chapter 22 of Origin of the Species that he can't account for the origin of complex, self-reproducing life forms. Also, I notice you never addressed my point that if Darwinian evolution were true, we would expect to find many information adding mutations, which we don't. For some reason it seems to anger you that not every credentialed scientist necessarily accepts evolution. I think it is just something you need to accept and deal with. We will just have to agree to disagree. "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:39 AM:

" Okay, but will you do one thing for me. Take up this challenge: name me one prayer(by a Christian you know or know of) that hasn't been answered. I find this a very odd allegation on your part that prayer is not answered universally. As for answers in genesis, I suspect that the biology professors and students at Mt Hood Community College and UWL had at least a good solid high schools science class under their belt, yet were unable to refute the arguements of Dr Menton. That would appear to contradict your assertion. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 14, 2008 5:27 PM:

" Answersingenesis is a joke, and anyone with a high school science class under their belt should be able to easily dimantle most of their arguments there.
I still haven't found one person able to provide an alternate explanation to just the 3 powerful proofs of evolution- Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs), The fusion of Human Chromosome 2, or the broken Vitamin C gene. I have videos discussing the implications of these on my site- www.midwestatheist.blogspot.com (just use the search bar at the top). I dare you to watch these videos, and bring back an adequate creationist explanation. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 14, 2008 5:20 PM:

" 1. Darwin's book, "The origin of Species," describes how one species arises from another. If you bothered to read it, you would even find a passage that he wrote indicating that he felt it was possible for a creator to have breathed life into one or a few initial life forms, and that they evolved from there.
2. I do not have a bias against the supernatural, I have a bias against unfounded nonsense. I would believe in some sort of supernatural effect if Christian prayers could be shown to be answered more frequently than Muslim prayers. That is just one of many examples I could come up with. Isn't it interesting that every study shows that prayer is not answered univerally in all faiths? "

Voice of Reason wrote on Apr 14, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Midwest Atheist-the fact these debates even take place tells me that reasonable people can disagree. To call people names or mock their faith simply because they don't share your bias against the supernatural strikes me as rather closed-minded. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 14, 2008 3:20 PM:

" MA, I wish there was a video of his talk at UWL. Unfortunately, there isn't. I believe they should videotape some of these. All I can do is direct you to the answersingenesis website where you can order videos of debates that Mentons colleague, Ken Ham, has had with evolutionists. There may be others, but Hams are the ones I am aware of. We all have the same evidence. Your worldview determines how you interpret the evidence. "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 14, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Darwins theory claims evolution IS the cause of our origins, hence the title of his book "Origin of the Species". Of course it has to do with the origin of life, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on Apr 14, 2008 11:27 AM:

" One theory is that life began with God's emanations.. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 14, 2008 11:08 AM:

" As far as the origins of life- isn't interesting that the theory of gravity doesn't explain the origin of life? Then that theory must be false! Evolution has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of life, all of evolutionary theory takes place after the first self-replicating molecule is here. The origin of life is called abiogenesis, and science has some ideas (and has been able witness the spontaneous formation of many amino acids in the laboratory), but it is not at the point where we can saw how that event happened, yet. Saying, "We don't know," doesn't give more credence to the dust-man, rib-woman, Magic Man done-it theory. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 14, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Where are there videos online to see these compelling debates with Dr. Menton for those of us who have not been able to see him? I have included many videos on my site of Ken Miller, some by himself, and some debating creationists. Also many other evolutionary scientists in a debate setting can be found on my site. All of Mentons videos that I see online are him, by himself, usually standing at a pulpit. "

To BrianGSmith 7:09pm wrote on Apr 12, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Why don't you ask some of the biology and science profs at UWL who asked that same question of Menton? "

Question re Kenneth Miller wrote on Apr 12, 2008 8:51 PM:

" Did he invite respected scientists who hold a different position than he does to challenge him on his evidence, like Dr Menton did? Anyone with even basic scientific knowledge can present a compelling case, or sound good to laymen. But, Dr Menton goes toe to toe on the evidence with his critics and comes out ahead almost everywhere he speaks. Does Miller do that? Wait, I watched your little videos-I can answer that. No, he doesn't. Sorry, Menton is all around more compelling and credible. I am not related to him, I am not his friend, I make no money off him. I have no vested interest one way or the other. It's just how it is. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 12, 2008 8:46 PM:

" Brian, you don't understand what God did or why He did it. It makes no sense to your human brain. Relying on people to spread His Word may not be how "you" would do it. All that proves is you aren't God. "

To Move Beyond Superstitions wrote on Apr 12, 2008 8:43 PM:

" You have a good point. Evolution, with all its holes and problems) is probably the best natural explanation for our origins that exists. It is likely no one will come up with a better scientific(that is, excluding the supernatural) explanation for our origins. That right there is a good arguement for Creation. Science alone simply does not cut it. Nor should it be expected to. It can't. By definition, it excludes the supernatural. "

life spans then and now wrote on Apr 12, 2008 8:38 PM:

" It's speculation but with scientific facts. The Earth was in a near perfect state up till the flood. It probably had a large water vapor barrier in the upper atmosphere which allowed for better shielding of the suns radiation. During the flood that water vapor barrier was condensed and added to the flood waters. There are also studies showing that under stronger magnetic fields the body stays healthier. We know that the Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. There is also information about a supernova at the time of the Flood which might answer that question www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/ skeptics/methusela.shtml) "

Southeast Atheist to Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 12, 2008 8:36 PM:

" Fine, I will become a part of the freethinkers so long as no one who doesn't think as we do will be there. "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 12, 2008 7:53 PM:

" Sure. Dr Menton managed to make compelling arguements that went over well in that venue. He also made compelling arguements that went over well at Mt Hood Community College. When two evolution professors at that venue questioned Menton at the end, someone remarked it was like they were playing t-ball against the Yankees. You keep bringing up that most scientists disagree. That is not the point. He has the evidence on his side. Don't you find it odd that none of these biologists and scientists can refute what he has to say? Don't you find it odd that his scientific evidence trumps their's every single time? Midwest Atheist, it is time to actually "free think", and go where the evidence leads. "

To 3:30pm wrote on Apr 12, 2008 7:45 PM:

" That would also go back to the perfect or near perfect genetics during this time. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 12, 2008 7:42 PM:

" Okay, Brian, just for you. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. Natural selection can not explain the origin of complex, self-reproducing life forms-and evolutionists have no way to explain this essential step in the evolution of life. If "goo to you" evolution were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But, we have not found even one. "

To Brian G Smith wrote on Apr 12, 2008 7:09 PM:

" What evidence do you have of aliens influencing and engineering our lives?
"

Dear "Kenneth Krause" wrote on Apr 12, 2008 4:41 PM:

" What "evidence" did Menton submit? (Come on...just one fact, please) - BrianGSmith "

RE:To BrianGSmith wrote on Apr 12, 2008 4:39 PM:

" I believe that if a "benevolent CREATOR" decided to write a book to instruct humanity He'd write it in a "Universal Language"....something everyone could understand. The idea of God relying on men to 'interpret' and relate His word to the masses is extremely skeptical. I think there's more credence in the theory of Alien's influencing and engineering our lives than of some universal creator looking over a chosen few. - BrianGSmith "

To 9:54 am poster wrote on Apr 12, 2008 3:30 PM:

" You really believe people lived to 500 years of age? I you believe that, why don't they anymore? "

to 4:55 part 2 wrote on Apr 12, 2008 9:54 AM:

" Incest wasn't against God's law until Moses's time. While that seems odd to us, there are a few possible reasons. One, is that Adam and Eve had perfect genetics so mutations wouldn't be a problem for thousands of years by brother-sister relationships. Two, prior to the flood, people lived hundreds of years so a 500 year old person probably had the health of a 50 year old today. Therefore a person could be 200 years old and marry his sister (whom he may never had met) who was 20 years old. These things are possible but not proven facts. Just like the Evolutionary theory of origins, it takes faith. I happen to place my faith in the Word of God, and it hasn't let me down yet. "

to 4:55pm wrote on Apr 12, 2008 9:48 AM:

" All of your queries have plausible answers. You can find them at numberous sites if you are serious in researching. I'll answer a few of your easier queries. First, God knew exactly when the flood would occur, so he could have had the animals migrating toward Noah years in advance if needed. Second, the continents were split by the flood, not before the flood, so there wasn't this swimming across the oceans problem. "

Noah's Ark? What a Fairy Tale. wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:55 PM:

" Next thing you'll be telling me that the earth is flat and is 10,000 years old, and that all dinosaurs ate plants before the fall. Tell me this about the ark- how did all of the marsupials manage to make it from the middle east to Australia without leaving any offspring or bones along the way? Did they swim out there. How did freshwater fish survive the saltwater? How did any plants manage to survive the 40 days covered by a mountain of crushing water? Does god like incest so much that he necessitated it both with Adam and Eve's children and Noah's family? We have millions and millions of different species from 50,000 in a few thousand years and you DON'T believe in evolution? That rate of mutation would not be able to sustain a species. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:46 PM:

" Common Ancestry is the term used as short hand to say the common ancestry we have with the great apes. The genetic evidence alone is irrefutable, even without the extensive fossil record. It may be that Menton managed to make compelling arguments that went over well at that venue, but that doesn't make him right. Almost all scientists, religious and not, disagree with his thinking based on sound evidence. Watch the videos I liked to, expecially the one by Kenneth Miller presenting to high schoolers- it's really well done.
Would a theist be welcome at our freethinker group? Maybe you missed the part in the description that it's a forum for "nonthiests", that is what the term freethinker is synonymous with.
"

Move Beyond Superstitions wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:36 PM:

" 8:39am, biological evolution is a fact, as we can observe it happen in nature and in a lab. "Evolutionary Theory" (ET) is exactly that - a theory - which is a logical and testable explanation of how systems work. It is based on factual and physical evidence and logical reasoning. It is the only such theory of human origins that we have. The DNA and fossil evidence supports the theory very strongly. Is ET perfect? Of course not. Are there gaps in the fossil record? Sure there are. ET is still our best explanation of how humans came into being, and it will stay that way until someone comes up with a more logical and testable theory. "

Texas Jess wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:12 PM:

" So, in a nutshell, you are welcome to our freethought society as long as you think as we do. "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 11, 2008 3:55 PM:

" I must have missed the arguement that "it just seems so complicated to me". Help me out-which post are you referencing? "

Southeast Atheist wrote on Apr 11, 2008 3:42 PM:

" No, Midwest Atheist, you are wrong! Wrong! Collins can't do science. Science by definition is only concerned with the natural. Not the supernatural! Not! Whats next? Are you going to say this David Menton character is a respected scientist? Yes, I know he was a biomedical research technician at the Mayo Clinic and a Professor of Anatomy and is a member of the American Association of Anatomists and has a PH.D. in cell biology. Who cares? He believes in Adam and Eve!? He can't freely think. He disagrees with us. If I join the your free thinker group, will people like him be welcome? Answer me that. "

Cleveland Steamer wrote on Apr 11, 2008 3:31 PM:

" Seriously, Southeast Atheist, do you really think anyone is going to watch those videos? I mean, come on, that is just silly. "

Kenneth Krause to Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 11, 2008 3:29 PM:

" Of course we have common ancestry. Adam and Eve. See the 3rd post on this board by Planet Stasiak. MA, please don't think I haven't read any books or writings or arguements by the leading evolutionists. I have. Mostly, I have read Dawkins. But, I am also familiar with the writings of scientists on the other side like the aforementioned Menton. See the 4th post by Texas Jess. I know more scientists agree with you, but that doesn't impress me. What impresses me is the evidence. I have no personal agenda, and I simply find the evidence presented by the likes of Menton more compelling. MA, I was in attendance at UWL when Menton was there. The evolutionists outnumbered him by a long shot. But, his evidence was much stronger. Most people walking in with an open mind probably left feeling Menton was much more credible. "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 11, 2008 3:07 PM:

" Just to clarify, your group of free thinkers only welcomes people who think as you do? Or, would you welcome someone like, say, Dr David Menton who applies science and reason to human understanding, even though his conclusions are different than yours? How about Francis Collins, who you respect as a scientist? Certainly he applies science to human understanding. Or, because he disagrees with you regarding the supernatural, would he not be welcome? "

Ark wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:30 PM:

" There are people who have researched animals (even dinosaurs) being on the ark, and it is possible. Remember a few things: the animals could have been young ones therefore small, The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts, The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space. christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:14 PM:

" To watch some videos on Evolution and educate yourself, go here midwestatheist.blogspot.com/ search/label/--Evolution "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Re: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm
Did you even read this article? These scientists are questioning whether there are other natural forces besides natural selection that influence evolution. Not one of them disbelieves in common ancestry. Even Michael Behe, the guy who coined the now debunked idea of irreducible complexity, acknowledges common ancestry. Face it people, common ancestry has been PROVEN by the mountains of genetic evidence. Your arguements of "It just seems so complicated to me" don't hold any water against the mountains of irrrefutable data. "

Midwest Atheist and the La Crosse Area Freethought Society wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:39 PM:

" To Southeast Atheist- I respect Francis Collins as a scientist, and his scientific findings are relevant and respected in the scientific community. I think his assessment of the existance of the supernatural is wrong, but that doesn't effect his ability to do science. Oh, and thanks for reminding me to plug our group. We have formed the (LCAFS) with the mission statement of "The La Crosse Area Freethought Society is organized to serve as a local forum in which nontheists can meet, socialize, and exchange ideas. Our mission is to promote positive freethought, the separation of church and state, and the application of reason and science to human understanding." Anyone interested can contact LCAFS@yahoo.com PS- we don't have a "leader" "

To Related Matter wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:34 PM:

" It is satire. Read the letter again. Phrases such as "plain and simple" and "no matter the circumstances" are tip-offs. "

Cleveland Steamer to Starfish wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:18 PM:

" No, paraphrased it doesn't say that. Try again. "

to Starfish wrote on Apr 11, 2008 12:53 PM:

" The theory of creation is more credible then the theory of evolutionary origins, simply because we can see and demonstrate modes of creating higher forms from lesser forms (computers from wires from rocks). It simply isn't credible that over time rocks and oil would combine in the right way to form even wires or plastic. It also isn't credible that any animal will ever evolve into any other animal. (And don't go to the butterfly argument, because even a 5th grader knows that a caterpiller is just a stage of a butterfly.) "

To Harsch wrote on Apr 11, 2008 12:00 PM:

" I beg to differ. I don't think you understand. "

Michael Welch: The Uglier The World Becomes The More "Sense" You Make?... wrote on Apr 11, 2008 11:52 AM:

" No one wishes to discuss dinosaurs on the ark of course but I don't think even most Christians actually 'enjoy' reading the Bible anymore -- i. e. the good stories are written in archaic prose and oft interrupted by obscure lists of rules and regulations that nobody can get straight, then as well as now. So I wouldn't especially put this existence past a 'God' like that; maybe the seeming inevitability of self destruction would be THE most persuasive 'evidence.' Wacko God = wacko world? Everything good about it gets destroyed after all and no one cares what Jesus 'taught,' only that he's their final 'way out' once the whacked out God DOES pull the plug. Not very attractive, THAT Christianity... "

Harsch: Orbits wrote on Apr 11, 2008 10:01 AM:

" As a novelist, I understand prophecy fulfillment very well. In each of my novels every single prophecy is fulfilled. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:36 AM:

" To 9:14 AM: I did. Paraphrased, it says: if something is bigger than I can understand, it is wrong. "

Related matter wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:23 AM:

" A letter to the editor by Justin Ahrens illustrates the complete lack of understanding of, well, anything. Get this, he actually states "plain and simple, it is contrary to the Constitution to display religious symbols in public places". He then goes on to state, emphatically, "no matter what the circumstances, religious symbols, practices, and displays are prohibited from public places." Seriously, if it was a blog, I would think it was a parody. But, it was a letter to the editor. So, sadly, I am afraid some people actually think this way. "

To Starfish wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:14 AM:

" See 4/10 3:25pm
"

Starfish wrote on Apr 11, 2008 8:58 AM:

" To 6:47 AM: "a fact is something that can be duplicated and observed?" Perhaps. A theory, then, is an assemblage of facts that provide context and, unlike the invisible spagetti monster that ate your Peanut MM's, can reasonably predict the direction of the next facts to be observed. Observable microevolution, then, strongly implies macroevolution, the difference being only the continuum of existence. "

Southeast Atheist wrote on Apr 11, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Also, what is the deal with kids putting crosses in their artwork? That deal in Holmen. What is wrong with our youngsters these days? Hopefully, that menace to society is in jail. Anyone have an update? "

Southeast Atheist to Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 11, 2008 8:42 AM:

" I respectfully request that you address my 4/10 8:42am post. Collins is a Theist, and you gave him props. I demand you retract. He is not like us. He is not a free thinker. He couldn't be a free thinker, because he disagrees with us. I know this because it is what the leader of my free thinkers group told me. "

To Move Beyond Superstitions wrote on Apr 11, 2008 8:39 AM:

" You are different than most evolutionists who claim evolution as an explantion for our origins is a scientific fact. "

Remember.... wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:47 AM:

" In science, a fact is something that can be duplicated and observed. If something hasn't been duplicated and observed it isn't a fact but an assumption. When you believe something that isn't a fact, you are using faith. Saying something like "most fact based" is misleading. I can say the invisible spagetti monster ate my Peanut MM's in my living room on Wednesday. Now it's a fact that my Peanut MM's were eaten in my living room on Wednesday, but that doesn't prove that the invisible spagetti monster ate them. "

Move Beyond Superstitions wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:18 PM:

" Evolutionary theory is inadequate in explaining our existence....so what? Of course it's inadequate, as we are not omniscient beings. We don't have all the answers at this time. It's still the best, most fact-based, most logical explanation that we have. We DON'T have all the answers to life's mysteries; this is what scares religious zealots so much - the uncertainty, the unknown, and the lack of absolutes. We are but children when it comes to understanding the Earth, life, and the universe. We know so little about our ancient past, and we may never know. We don't have a time machine, and the physical evidence may never be found. Religious zealots are just too afraid to admit that they don't have all the answers. "

to Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 10, 2008 6:52 PM:

" You are not up to date on the waking up of scientists. First, read the pro-evolutionist book "Denying Evolution" by Massimo Pigliucci. Then realize that Mr. Pigliucci is part of a group of scientists who will be analyzing the current theory of origins in Altenburg, Austria, this year. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ HL0803/S00051.htm "

To Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 10, 2008 5:01 PM:

" Your responses are typical as well as predictable. See the 3rd and 4th posts on this blog by Texas Jess and Planet Stasiak. I will take the evidence over the numbers. Also, how is it that all the biologists in attendance at UWL were ignorant of the scientific findings that "prove" evolution? Why were they not able to refute Dr Menton? They outnumbered him, after all. I would suspect it was because the evidence presented by Menton was superior to theirs. "

Planet wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:54 PM:

" Bugs, I didn't list all of them here. I didn't want to expend too much time or energy and have Harsch come back with a tale about a mouse in a box, as he did with someone on another board. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:54 PM:

" To 3:06 PM: And I guess if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us, right? Could it be that translations from Hebrew to Greek to old English to modern English could present a little filtering/modification of The Word? Whoa, DUDE! "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:21 PM:

" No one has ever witnessed a seed turn into a fully grown redwood tree, therefore it can't happen.

Evolution ("micro and macro" whatever you want to call it) has been throroughly proved with genetics, just because you happen to be ignorant of the scientific findings doesn't mean your assertions are correct. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:17 PM:

" As far as so-called prophesies go, The book of Kish predicts that the Mets would win the 1969 world series, does that mean the book is divine? The new testament was written with all of the old testament texts available to the writers, and there are no outside sources to even say definitively that Jesus existed, let alone confirm any of the details about his life. I'd be amazed if the New Testament DIDN'T support all of the prohesies. It even says that Jesus rode in to town on an ass "so to fulfill the prophesy." It's hardly a fulfilled prophesy when you change your actions to fit a text. That's just following directions. Now if it predicted that "An earthquake shall rock the city of angels in the 20th century, causing much devastation," now that's what I'd call a prophesy! "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 10, 2008 4:16 PM:

" You don't have to trust my scientific credentials, I rely on the 99% of scientific community that understands Evolution is factual. I understand that there are 7 times more historians who believe the holocaust never happened than there are biologists who deny evolution. Who should I believe more- David Menton or almost the entire scientific community? I'd like to see any of you research and disprove the three phenomenon I mentioned (ERVs, broken vitamin C gene, and Human Chromosome 2 fusion) without relying on evolution. "

To Michael wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:25 PM:

" Micro evolution and macro evolution are two completely different animals. The terms are a little misleading because it is not so much a small scale/large scale thing. The commonly referred to "micro" evolution is animals adapting to their environment, which can be seen and observed. The so-called "macro" evolution purports to give the basis for our origins, which is something completely different. It can't be seen or observed or tested in any way. It is really just a guess, and not a very good one at that. "

To Starfish wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:06 PM:

" The one in all the hotel rooms. You know, the worldwide bestseller(by far) of any other book. But, you knew that, didn't you? "

Bugs to Planet wrote on Apr 10, 2008 2:40 PM:

" Seems you're short about 394 prophecies. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 10, 2008 1:46 PM:

" To 10:33 AM: Which bible? Which G-d? "

To Harsch wrote on Apr 10, 2008 1:08 PM:

" Ask the mouse in the box. "

Planet Stasiak to Harsch wrote on Apr 10, 2008 1:01 PM:

" The Messiah would...
1)be preceded by a messenger
2)be born in Bethlehem
3)be from the tribe of Judah
4)enter jerusalem on a colt
5)be betrayed by a friend
6)be sold for 30 pieces of silver
You get the idea. Anyway, Rick, all I had to do was google Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled. The Old Testament verses as well as the New Testament verses fulfilling the prophecy are given for reference. Since the New Testament was written hundreds of years after the Old Testament, this is pretty powerful. "

Michael Welch: Still Not Very Convincing But Neither Is The War In Iraq And It Goes On... wrote on Apr 10, 2008 11:47 AM:

" Apparently Dr Menton is somewhat of a 'wunderkind' -- at least re: whatever apparently hapless evolutionists attempting to challenge him at poor ol' science weak UW-L. I guess I don't know why if MICRO-evolution readily occurs that MACRO-evolution could not; it's based on the same observation, that all life forms adapt, alter, mutate or disappear. But I already admitted I read more about religion than science so I'm not adequate to dispute. I do know that Genesis just isn't 'science' but creationists realize they MUST keep the topic AWAY from discussing biblical literalism -- those who 'abandon' evolution, it will be assumed, will have no other 'place' to go but biblical. Or that's their hope... "

harsch wrote on Apr 10, 2008 11:16 AM:

" Please list these 400 fulfilled prophesies. "

To : Rick Harsch wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Do you really want to know, or is this just an excuse to start talking about mice and cardboard boxes again? "

My own summation wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:51 AM:

" Starfish,Midwest Atheist, Move Beyond superstitions, Starfish, Midwest Atheist, Move Beyond Superstitions, Starfish, Midwest Atheist, Move Beyond Superstitions, Starfish, Midwest Atheist, Move Beyond Superstitions.
Okay, you convinced me. "

To Harsch wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:48 AM:

" BGS also claims to have no doubt. Claiming to know what this design beyond our comprehension ISN'T is equivalent to claiming to know what this design IS. Savvy?
"

Planet Stasiak to Harsch wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:33 AM:

" I believe the Bible is the word of God. Obviously, if you do not, we aren't going to agree. The fulfillment of over 400 Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah is one of the main reasons, but not the only reason, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. Although you disagree, I hope this answers your question. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:23 AM:

" So to sum up: Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton, Dr. David Menton.

Well, okay: now that you put it THAT way! "

Harsch to some other planet wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:17 AM:

" The difference between you and BGSmith is that he retains the human faculty of doubt, whereas you apparently do not. Sure, God may have some design beyond our comprehension, but why is it that you purport to know what it is? Finally, perhaps the greatest Indian philosopher of the 20th century, Radhakrishnan, who knew the western sources better than most westerners yet remained a Hindu, basically said that as there was no way to determine whether to believe in God or not, one might as well. In an arm wrestling contest his God could easily beat yours by being in two places at once. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:28 AM:

" You have some faith. Is it that hard to believe you may not understand everything about God? That is,some things, to you, may appear to make no sense. But God, in his infinite wisdom, may have a plan your human mind sometimes doesn't understand? "

To BrianGSmith wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:13 AM:

" I find it odd that you can accept the idea of intelligent design and a benevolent creator, but can't accept the idea that a being capable of this design and creation could not provide us an instruction booklet, so to speak. "

To Midwest Atheist and move beyond... wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:09 AM:

" Unless your scientific credentials are more impressive than those of Dr David Menton, I must give his opinions and conclusions regarding science more weight than yours. But, thanks for your input anyway. "

Kenneth Krause to Starfish wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:07 AM:

" As someone in attendance at the UWL event, I can say that those "scientists" were most definitely swayed. The look on their faces said it all. "

Southeast Atheist wrote on Apr 10, 2008 8:42 AM:

" Alright, Midwest Atheist, thanks for posting! I was thinking I was the only free thinker here! But, how dare you give credence to someone who is not one of us. Who cares what Collins thinks? He is a Theist-not a free thinker! "

To Starfish 4:45pm wrote on Apr 10, 2008 8:36 AM:

" This is the only one I am aware of that happened right here in LaCrosse, due to Mr Krause writing about it previously. There could have been others here, and there were certainly other instances elsewhere. And, I wouldn't say that no scientists were swayed. The scientists present that day were swayed, whether they admit it or not. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 10, 2008 8:23 AM:

" To: 7:47 PM, 10:17 PM:

Nicely stated, both of you! I'd really hope that, by now, faith in scientific method and thought is distinguishable from self-justifying religious faith. There is NOT A SINGLE BELIEF I HAVE, with respect to the physical world, THAT CANNOT BE MODIFIED WITH NEW DATA. "

to move beyond superstitions part 2 wrote on Apr 10, 2008 6:06 AM:

" In fact Mr. Pigliucci is part of a group of scientists who will be analyzing the current theory of origins in Altenburg, Austria, this year. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature � let's call them "the Altenberg 16" � who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm These aren't light weight wanna-be's but hard core scientists who recognize that the evidence no longer leads to the current theory of evolution. "

to move beyond superstitions wrote on Apr 10, 2008 5:57 AM:

" Actually you are wrong. Read the pro-evolutionist book "Denying Evolution" by Massimo Pigliucci. Even he states that faith is involved. He demonstrates a few of those leaps of faith when he states that science is not immune from ideology or social pressure (p.66), or on p. 145 that science can not draw conclusions about things it can not measure (like a primitive organisms (p. 203) or transitional forms or how non life created life or how mutations could add genetic information vs. subtract information, etc.), or how science is subjective because it is done by human beings (p.248), or how it is influenced by politics in academia (p.262), or that scientists will �stretch a point if it fits with the scenario he is trying to convene� and that he MAY not get away with it under peer review (p. 228-229). "

BrianGSmith wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:01 AM:

" Believe it or not (show some faith) I can accept the idea of "Intelligent Design"....it could explain 'some' things. The idea of a 'benevolent' Creator overseeing our progress is comforting.....easy. I actually had the idea back in 5th Grade in 1975....Sister Mary Ann's science class as I was coming to grips with the contradictions between reality and the stories and doctrines of my christian faith. What is unacceptable and beyond reason and logic is the belief in the "biblical" narration......coupled with the hallucinatory faith that the bible is the direct 'word of god'.....our instruction booklet, so to speak. "

Midwest Atheist wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:17 PM:

" Evolution happens, it is a fact, the great apes and humans share a common ancestor. This is a fact. If you don't believe it, then you haven't done the research. Look up the broken vitamin C gene, endogenous retroviruses, and the fusion of human chromosome 2. These evidences are undeniable. Those of you who want to deny it either haven't looked at the evidence, or you have ulterior motives. Francis Collins has said that even without any fossil evidence, the genetic evidence for evolution is so strong that it is an open and closed case. "

Move Beyond Superstitions wrote on Apr 9, 2008 7:47 PM:

" 5:18pm, you are completely wrong about faith and evolutionary theory. For one thing, "macro-evolution" is a meaningless and clumsy term that non-scientists use to describe the physical manifestation of biological evolution over many, mnay generations. Biological evolution occurs; this is an established fact. It exists on a genetic level, and over very long periods of time, those genetic changes manifest themselves via different appearance, organs, limbs, etc. Secondly, biologists do NOT use faith when discussing how life began. Most of them tell the truth - that no one knows how life began. Then, they give their best guess as to how it happened. NO emotional faith is involved at all. "

It takes faith to believe in macro-evolution part 2 wrote on Apr 9, 2008 5:18 PM:

" What I meant to say is that science cannot draw conclusions on things, such as non-life giving life or primitive organisms, etc. , without using FAITH.

"

Starfish wrote on Apr 9, 2008 4:45 PM:

" As for the contention that "The great scientists are the ones willing to challenge conventional ideas" (10:11 AM): this has applied, since, say, Copernicus, only in fairly narrow contexts. To act as though Darwin, Einstein, Watson and Crick found their respective theories out of the blue is just not true. In no case, did the new theory require the scientific community to jettison its current theories and data; rather, the new theories provided the missing thought that linked apparently disparate factoids together. To say that �the facts� lead to a paradigm shift is not quite true; rather, the EXPLANATION OF THE FACTS is what does the shifting. And the Dr. Menton story which you tell over and over (because there are no others?) has not swayed any scientists. "

Starfish to 1:00 wrote on Apr 9, 2008 4:33 PM:

" Wow
wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:11 AM:

" You mean I don't come from slime? That was my whole indentity. Thank you, Mr Collins. "
"

theman wrote on Apr 9, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Evolution has never been used as an explanation of origins of anything but various species. It never purported to explain where "it all started." Religious people who think evolution is a fantasy show a startling lack of faith in God. Why couldn't evolution be God's own mechanism? Scientists who think science has every answer and have no role for God show a similar lack of imagination. "

It takes faith to believe in macro-evolution wrote on Apr 9, 2008 3:44 PM:

" Faith is believing in something without proof. Proof in science is being able to repeat or observe.

Science cannot draw conclusions about things it can not measure like primitive organisms or transitional forms or how non life created life or how mutations could add genetic information vs. subtract information.

"

harsch wrote on Apr 9, 2008 2:15 PM:

" This Collins character clearly believes in macro-evolution. "

To MW wrote on Apr 9, 2008 1:11 PM:

" You are talking about the difference between mico-evolution and macro-evolution. Nearly everyone acknowledges that micro-evolution does indeed occur. The dispute is regarding macro-evolution. That is, evolution as an explanation of our origins. You are also correct in that there will probably always be disputes amongst learned men and women regarding the age of the earth, etc. Speaking for myself, I just have to look at the evidence and go where the evidence leads. And I happen to believe the evidence supports a Biblical worldview. "

To Starfish wrote on Apr 9, 2008 1:00 PM:

" I don't see where anyone states he has drawn the same conclusions as they have, not sure what post you are referring to. In fact, I disagree with many of Dr Collins conclusions. The research and conclusions of Dr David Menton are more closely aligned with my views. "

My favorite Collins' quote wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:38 PM:

" My favorite Collins' quote: "Evolution is just God's way of making upgrades." "

Michael Welch: Yup -- Here We Go Again!... wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Well I do 'doubt' that evolution is 'dead' -- I remember the theological assertion of the sixties had 'God' too taking a powder but then 'He' revived; I suspect evolution shall also. Even so-called 'creationists' accept after all shorter term 'evolutions' of living creatures that adapt to environments; adaption is vital to sustaining life in any form and that's the essence of evolution. I know other things I doubt -- that the planet is merely 6000 years old and dinosaurs or 'all creatures great and small' for that matter once were roiling about on a great 'ark'; and the earliest stories of Genesis DO read very mythologically, hardly scientifically -- but: 'round 'n' 'round we go, just like the war in Iraq I guess... "

Starfish wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:04 PM:

" How funny that people read of a scientist with faith and immediately ASSUME that he has drawn the same conclusions they have without bothering to hear what he has to say. In fact: ". . .Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution. . .which says, among other things that while the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time with no special supernatural intervention was required and humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. . ." Really: a pretty cool guy that has drawn the same conclusions that I have. "

A few words from a Deist wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:58 AM:

" I tend to favor creationism over evolution, at least in terms of human development. Ancient tablets found in southern Iraq tell the tale of the first civilized society, the Sumerians. The Sumerians stated in their tablets that aliens known as the Anunnaki came down from the heavens. The Anunnaki then began genetic experiments, from which the first man, the Adama, was created. All of this occurred in their settlement which was known as E.din. All of this was later written down allegorically in the Old Testament book of Genesis, where the Anunnaki were labeled as the Nefilim. "

Kenneth Krause wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:52 AM:

" Planet Stasiak, it was I who posted a few weeks ago regarding the discussion at UWL with Dr Menton. I was in attendance, and keep meaning to dig out my notes. It was open to any student or faculty, and many of the biology professors and students did attend and engaged Dr Menton in some very interesting dialogue. Your account is essentially correct, inclusing the student who had a breakdown. Texas Jess, the facts and evidence matter not to these people as long as they have the numbers on their side. As we have seen, though, the majority is not always correct. Sometimes, but not always. "

Wow wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:11 AM:

" You mean I don't come from slime? That was my whole indentity. Thank you, Mr Collins. "

Southeast Atheist wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:30 AM:

" You guys just stop it! There is no such thing as faith supported by reason! I don't care what anyone says. I will just talk about the flying spaghetti monster and pretend the evidence for that is identical to the evidence for Christ. If that fails, I will just go to my freethinkers group and ask the leader what to think about all this. "

Texas Jess wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:11 AM:

" I am sure the evolutionists and anti-religion zealots will bring up that most scientists support evolution. But, that is not really the point, is it? You don't "vote" on reality. The great scientists are the ones willing to challenge conventional ideas and go where the scientific evidence actually leads. The scientists who aren't willing to do this are at best ordinary and at worst intellectually dishonest. They will do anything to protect their religion of evolution. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:07 AM:

" A few weeks ago on one of these blogs, someone mentioned a debate that took place at UWL involving Dr David Menton and various biology professors and students who were evolutionists. I think it was more informal and certainly not on as large a scale or as well publicized as the debate Jimmy mentions. Anyway, long story short, Menton basically had these evolutionists for lunch. One of them even had a breakdown and started crying, calling him a sell out. I am sure these 2 debates and/or discussions are not isolated incidents. People, it's time to wake up. Evolution is dead. "

Starfish wrote on Apr 9, 2008 9:42 AM:

" Amen.

Though I will add that arguments between faith and science usually originate in disagreements on fulndamental definitions. "

Get ready....here it comes.... wrote on Apr 9, 2008 9:35 AM:

" ...come on over to Jimmys latest blog to witness an outpouring of posts attempting to discredit Francis Collins with claims that he is not a "real" scientist just because he comes to different conclusions. Some people just CAN'T STAND it when people disagree with them. They become infuriated when anyone dares to allege a rational basis for their faith. The fact these debates even occur goes to show what many people have always known: faith and reason are not mutually exlusive. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »