Pat Robertson Is Getting Wiser With Age

I'm pleasantly surprised that Old Age Creationist Pat Robertson seems to have taken another leap of fact.  He is now officially embraces Theistic Evolution (evolution happens as per God's plan).  This is the same official position as the Vatican.

Yes, there are quite a few people out there still who believe in an ancient earth and universe, but also believe man was poofed here by God around 10,000 years ago.  Of course, there are those, like Ken Ham, who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that evolution is nonsense.  These Young Earth Creationists are laughing stocks, and apparently have become embarrassments to the Pat Robertson's of the the world.  

The majority of Americans who support the the Republican Party are YECs.  And the Republican politicians have to play to these fools.

Anyway, here is Pat Robertson laying into the YECs:

As The US Election Nears, Evolution Is Likely To Be Discussed

So far, Mitt Romney has pretty much avoided having to appease the Religious Right. In fact, he has their vote sewn up because the RR is so much anti-Obama, his opposing candidate only needs to accept Jesus as being a magical type of guy to win them over.

This means that Romney, if he is smart, could actually go after a left leaning Republican as his VP nomination.

Still, there will be some appeasing. It will interesting to see if Romney flip flops on his acceptance of evolution. He is bound to be asked again.

Anyway, this Seth Macfarlane short is definitely worthy of sending to your anti-evolution friends and relatives. Enjoy:

Will Mitt Romney Flip Flop On Evolution?

Considering the Daffy Duckonian beliefs the Mormons have when it comes to their religion, especially its roots, I find it encouraging that they can actually allow for evolution to have happened.

5 years ago, Mitt Romney gave his views regarding evolution in a NY Times article:

“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”

He was asked: Is that intelligent design?

“I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design,” he said. “But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”

While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies
class.”

Intelligent design is typically defined as the claim that examination of nature points to the work of an intelligent designer, as opposed to the utterly random, naturalistic processes that are taught as part of evolutionary theory. Critics have called intelligent design a thinly disguised version of creationism, which takes a literal approach to the creation account in Genesis, that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old.

Mr. Romney said he was asked about his belief in evolution when he was interviewed by faculty members for highest honors designations before his graduation from Brigham Young University.

He told his interviewers that he did not believe there was a “conflict between true science and true religion,” he said.

“True science and true religion are on exactly the same page,” he said. “they may come from different angles, but they reach the same conclusion. I’ve never found a conflict between the science of evolution and the belief that God created the universe. He uses scientific tools to do his work.”

The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints has no definitive position on evolution, and church leaders have disagreed on the issue over the years.

Mr. Romney said his answer was satisfactory to faculty members. “They teach evolution at B.Y.U.,” he said.

The big question is how much is Romney going to change or fuzz his words from 2007 to kiss up to the Religious Right. I'm hoping he won't, but I doubt it. One thing that is almost for certain, his selection for Vice President will not accept evolution at all. Sad, but that is how America politics rolls.

Intelligent Children Most Likely To Become Atheists

A new study suggest that atheism and liberalism are perspectives, concepts, ideals (whatever word you want to use) that are not biologically designed.

In other words, our first human ancestors were very conservative by nature, caring about their immediate family while being indifferent or non caring to others.

I kind of think that hunters can't really be the most empathetic people on this planet, whether hunting for food or sport.

All humans have an innate raw intelligence, but it seems that there are some that have an enhanced intelligence.

Let me take a stab at it. The ability to look at things from all sorts of perspectives without doing so consciously. The ability to fathom many possibilities with a worldview dependent on evidence and what is probable.

The study says that humans are naturally paranoid, and this is why religion was a natural fit.

I say that it if I saw lightning, and I couldn't explain it scientifically, as our ancestors couldn't, I too would need to believe in a supernatural entity as being the cause. It was the only thing that made sense back then. Once you have explanations for the unknown, then you can be focused enough to hunt, eat, survive, procreate, and take care of the newer generation.

Things have changed now. We have scientific explanations. Those who have special intelligence tend to get that there is really no evidence or need for a God, that homosexuality is not a choice, that other human beings have feelings regardless of whether you know them or not, and that teaching fairy tales in science class is absurd.

Why Global Warming Denialists Exist

Lets forget about the big business reasons to deny Global Warming caused by man for a moment.

One thing that doesn't seem to get a lot of attention is that most Global Warming denialists are also evolution denialists. Yes, the connection has been made, but there hasn't been lots said, and motivations aren't really being looked at.

I'm going to hypothesize about the reasons.

Bible literalists love any sort of perceived ambiguity in science (even if it doesn't really exist). Why? Because they are brainwashed thinking that if anything in their bible is wrong, the whole bible is wrong. So the fact that scientists have not come up with a consensus on Global Warming, and some believe that it is mostly man made, while others believe it is mostly a natural climate change, while others think that it is a mixture of the two, and aren't sure about the magnitude of man made causes regarding the current heating of the climate.

It is the same tactic used by creationists who quote Gould regarding his hypothesis regarding evolution happening abruptly. The fact that there were and still are debates regarding this, makes creationists state that the jury is out on evolution.

Of course, the data shows the earth is heating up and that evolution happened. But because the EXACT mechanisms are figured out yet, gives creationists the ability to say that evolution and Global Warming is not real science.

Another reason could be that creationists don't think that there is such a thing as climate change, well, except when God makes it rain for 40 straight days. 45% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. So using logic, most of them don't believe there have been Ice Ages, since the last one started around 20,000 years ago, at least 10,000 years before God created everything.

Personally, I don't think that these people really think about such things as the real age of the earth. The majority just drool at the mouth when they perceive they have any chance that there is a science conspiracy.

More Strong Evidence For Evolution That A Creationist Could Accept

If you are a creationist, please try to follow this video. It shows how molecular biology confirms evolution:

Evolution - The 'Best' Counter Arguments

Some yutz named left comments on my blog a month or two ago. He emailed me today, stating his newest comment was too long, and wasn't accepted. Same old mine quoting idiocy that bloggers like me see over and over again, by desperate creationists, who go to great lengths embarrassing themselves.

Instead of refuting each mine quote, I did a quick search and found this great vidoe. It cover most his crapola:


Here is the email:

Hi friend,

I could not post a comment on your blog because its length would not be accommodated,
so I do it here.

Moses - a fictional character? I'll have to provide you proof that it's otherwise,
just as I've collected proof against the evolutionary theory you so proudly flaunt.

I lost which thread I last wrote you so I'll take the opportunity here to show you what I've come up with to refute your arguments, since then.

Since you disregard the large gaps in the fossil record, you may be interested in some published quotes from recognized evolutionary biologists on the subject:

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." (Wills, C., Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96.)

"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

"As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140.)

- wishing you well, my friend.

--


By default, always take the high road.
*************************************************************
My response:

Thanks, but I have no use for someone who is willfully ignorant. I read the first three paragraphs, and when you mine quote scientists, that is enough. I've seen all your crapola before from others. It is useless. You evolution deniers are jokes. Mine quoting from 1980, 1971. Sheesh. Do you have any self respect?

There has not one scientific study that has refuted evolution. Not one. All finds fit into the evolution jigsaw puzzle. Not one find that goes against evolution. You are embarrassing Jews with your nonsensical crap. Seriously. The overwhelming majority of Jews accept evolution. You have big psychological problems (severe brainwashing perhaps) which has taken away your reasoning powers when it comes to this topic.

Please stop embarrassing Jews by denying evolution on the internet. You make us look bad. If you want to believe in fairy tales, fine. If you want to believe that evolution is bull, fine. But use a non Jewish name when you do it on the internet.

You really need to read Dawkins new book with an open mind.

Sincerely,

The Atheist Jew

If your religion can't accept evolution as fact, it is ridiculous from the getgo.
**********************************************

His response (so much for taking the high road hee hee):

Keep eating your bacon, nameless, it seems
to be working - making you mindless.
**************************************
My response:

It is you who has been brainwashed. Not me. Every single mine quote you made has been tackled by those who understand evolution. Some refuted, and some explained. The scientists who you mine quote, all accept evolution as fact. You are an embarrassment to Jews. But luckily and not surprisingly, you are not in the majority. A complete reality denier in order to make your version of fairy tales correct. You are sad, but it due to severe brainwashing. Snap out of it.

Is Fox News Trying To Lose Or Confuse Viewers

I've admitted here before that I watch Fox News. I'm gravitated to mostly because it is like watching a train wreck. I'm fascinated by the constant whining and spinning of the marginalized Religious Right disguising themselves as journalists and a political party. The cute on air blondes don't hurt their cause with me either.

So I put it on this morning, and two featured stories today made me ask myself "is this Fox or CNN?"

First they had a medical expert who said that half the newborns in the USA today will live to at least 104. Interesting fact, but also took it a step further and said that America has dropped to 40 something from 11th in the past decade when it comes to countries and life expectancy. And you know what he blamed it on? NOT HAVING NATIONAL HEALTH CARE. Wow, on Fox. Even the talking heads couldn't dispute what he was talking about.

Some more advice from the health guy, he said Americans need to go out and "walk."

Then, to top it off, they had their science expert discussing the recent find of Ardi.

One of the talking heads asked if this was the missing link. And the science guy gave a real answer, that this find is too young because it is only 4 million years old and that humans and chimps diverged around 6 million years ago. Although the real real answer (I can say real real if Whoopi can say rape rape) is that it is in fact a missing link. There are many, but scientists have also found many links that are no longer missing, so that they know pretty much what the missing links would look like.

But the guy on Fox this morning amazed me, before the find was discussed he called this exciting news and even blurted out "wake the kids." This was the same guy, I think, who not so long ago did a one sided interview with that Discovery Institute imbecile who reminds me a little of David Schwimmer (Casey Luskin), who was going on and on about how science books have it wrong when it comes to evolution.

I just saw the Luskin video again, and the guy who interviewed the Fox science expert was not the same dough head who interviewed Luskin.

Any way, what are the people who take Fox News seriously (evolution deniers and/or teabaggers) gonna think after watching this mornings broadcast?

Evolution Is A Fact, The Theory Is How We Understand It

Good job Rapid Ape:

Town Hall Nut Jobs Embarrass The United States

I realize there are pros and cons when it comes to the American health care debate. The main danger that comes with socialized medicine is that potentially the quality of physicians may decrease thanks to what would amount to caps on their wages and there could be less incentive to for research to happen as costs will need to come down, and in order to cut costs, drug prices need to come down.

As for the examples being thrown about using Canada, I'm sick of it. Personally, I do not know one person who went to the USA for any treatment. I know many people obviously have gone to the USA. But the stories of saved lives from doing so are few and far between. Yes, waiting times can be a bitch here, but does it really matter when we look at what is achieved collectively?

One stat that I just can't get away from is the fact that Canadians have a life expectancy two years greater than Americans. In fact, the USA ranks 47th on the list of countries in this category. Canada ranks 8th.

I don't buy diet or geography as being the reason why Canadians tend to live longer. I think Canadians eat just as much junk food collectively as Americans. And there are plenty of cold weather modern countries that have much lower life expectancies than Canada and even the USA.

America has more poverty pockets than Canada, at least right now they do. That contributes to lower life expectancy, as does gang violence and of course, the war doesn't help America's numbers, though we have lost quite a few Canadians in Afghanistan, America has lost a bigger percentage of their population.

Blacks in America have a life expectancy of around 6 years less than the average, and this brings down the average in the USA as well.

So lets say that when you take everything into consideration, lets just say that Canadians and Americans are expected to live the same life span, and expect the same quality of life as well.

The health care debate should just boil down to economics only. What system makes more economic sense when factoring in that as many citizens as possible need to be covered for anything that endangers their life.

As for the Town Hall bs. To me, all I see are a bunch of pissed off Republicans who have no clue what the issues are (I know, that there are a few that do know something). But for the most part, they are whining babies who can't cope with things like progress, a black Democrat in the White House, the thumping they took in the last election, Palin jokes, separation of church and state, and in probably most cases, EVOLUTION.

I'm convinced that 90% plus of the conservatives, who are making the USA look like a state full of mindless idiots at these Town Halls, do not accept evolution. I don't think that is a big stretch, since 45% of Americans do not accept evolution, and most of those are Republicans (the anti-science Party).

I'd like to see a few polls to prove I'm right. I know I am, but it would be nice to confirm it.

What Does It Take For A Creationist To Accept Evolution?

The world is full of reality denying individuals. People who reject evolution. Who look for holes, even where there aren't any, in the theory of evolution.

What does it take to "convert" these creationists to accept evolution/reality?

Let me first state that there are two type of creationists. Creationists who accept science, but add God and supernatural acts into their reality, and then there are the pathetic creationists who deny realities that do not fit in with their religious world views. The latter of course, are the creationists I am writing about now.

To many creationists, evolution is a story made up by scientists, while the bible is a story inspired or written by God. These creationists choose the story that gives them salvation over the story that doesn't. I really think it is that simple for many.

I do think the young and brainwashed, those under 30, who have never really looked into evolution, but were taught that evolution is nonsense, are probably the easiest to educate. Of course, they need to have the actual desire to learn.

The toughest to educate are the 40 plus know-it-all creationists, who have decided not to try to really understand evolution, to the point that rational thought goes out the window. They rely on frauds like Kent Hovind and Answers In Genesis to do the thinking for them.

But I've often wondered that what if these types were individually put into a room with Dr. Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, or Christopher Hitchens and made to watch Potholer54's Made Easy Series, able to stop and debate any point made in the videos they want. How long, if ever, would it take for the average willfully ignorant Fundy to accept reality?

The Made Easy Series For Schools:



It takes the will to investigate to find the truth, and to find out that what was assumed through religious or cultural indoctrination (like a historical Moses or Jesus) may not be true at all.

I was 40 before I was actually curious enough to investigate the historical Jesus or Moses. And I was actually startled from what I found....or what I didn't find. I think there are many believers who are in the same boat when it comes to evolution.

Potholer54's Made Easy Series, The Perfect Download For Darwin Day

I can't say enough about Potholer54's videos. They are thoughtful, educational, witty and most importantly, factual.

Let me update everyone on his Youtube sites.

First off, his main site.

There is a series of 14 videos From The Big Bang To Us. Basically, he lets the layman in on what science knows about what happened from the birth of the universe to the birth of the earth, to how and why abiogenesis is the most probable way life began, to evolution, to dating the earth, etc.

He has also done a couple of videos on climate change, in case you think you might be in the dark on the issue. Watch the videos, and you won't be any longer.


Creationist Beware: Potholer Is Starting To Edit His Series So That Your 12 Year Old Children Will Be Able To Understand Evolution, But More Importantly, That You Are Nonsensical

Hopefully, his work will make it to the classrooms. Check them out.


If that isn't enough, he also has another channel called Potholer54debunks

Here is his newest video, which is part one of his debunking the Ark story:

I'm looking forward to part two. Should be more on the humorous side.

And finally, his Made Easy Series is now available on DVD. Here is how to get your grubby paws on it:


It makes a perfect gift to your Fundy relatives.

HAPPY DARWIN DAY

More Atheist Nonsense: The Planting Of Transitional Whale Fossils

It is getting more and more painfully obvious that devious atheists continue to plant fossils all over God's good earth in an attempt to get more converts to religion of atheism.

Regular fossils weren't good enough because intelligent creationists started to notice that there were no missing links or transitional fossils. This fact was causing the atheist recruiting movement to lose steam, so what did the pesky atheists do? They started to plant transitional fossils in places where they predicted they would find them. And then a fantasy story is attached to the finding. Take the recent fossil find that "proved" that early whales gave birth on land.

It is amazing that atheists buy these fairy tales but laugh at the idea of a person rising from the dead and ascending to heaven.

Ok, that is enough of my Edward Current impression for today.

Now that I might have the attention of both creationists and realists, here is an excellent video which asks creationists to think and do some 'splaining:

Apparently the above video was flagged by Youtube creationists.

I always liked the argument that if evolution were false, how come a creationist scientist hasn't come up with a way to interpret the fossil data or even come up with any evidence that contradicts evolution. That scientist would be more famous than Jesus. What is holding back the creationist intelligencia?

Still interested in whale evolution? Check out my post from last year; A Whale of a Tale.

See also, Maiacetus, the good mother whale

My List Of Stupid, Silly and/or Crazy People On The Internet

I have plenty of internet "debates." Here is a list of categories I wind up "debating" usually. I consider the people who are on the other side of the "debates" stupid, silly, and/or crazy, at least when it comes to any of the issues I'm pointing out below. Yes, many people show up on a few of the categories.

1. Young Earth Creationists
2. Evolution Deniers
3. Holocaust Deniers
4. Those who use the bible as evidence for God
5. Those who call atheism a religion, or liberalism a religion
6. Those who believe the side of the terrorist is the side of the victim
7. Those who think that we shouldn't piss off Islam because we will get what we deserve if we do
8. People who think that homosexuality is a choice in most cases, if not all cases
9. Those who think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real document
10. People who say there is definite proof that Jesus and/or Moses existed
11. Those who criticize Israel, say they aren't anti-semites, but fail to criticize other world wide conflicts or regimes
12. Anyone who thinks the UN has any use today other than help Islam spread
13. Those who have a problem with Israel's legitimacy, but doesn't have an equal problem with the legitimacy of Canada, the USA, and Australia, etc.
14. Muslims who whine about less than 500,000 Jews going to the non sovereign region of Palestine from Europe, yet have no problem populating the West by the millions
15. Those who say that Israel is guilty of genocide
16. Those against gay marriage
17. Those against the woman's right to choose
18. People who own pitbulls (ok, that is not an internet one)
19. Those who know for sure that man has absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming
20. Those who think that God creates miracles or disasters

I could probably go on. But it is my birthday in 2 and a half hours.