Patterico's Pontifications

2/12/2015

Presidential Candidate Vetted

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:23 am



There’s something to investigate about this presidential candidate’s college days, and so the Washington Post is on the job.

As Scott Walker mulls White House bid, questions linger over college exit

Scott Walker was gone. Dropped out. And in the spring of his senior year.

In 1990, that news stunned his friends at Marquette University. Walker, the campus’s suit-wearing, Reagan-loving politico — who enjoyed the place so much that he had run for student body president — had left without graduating.

To most of the Class of 1990 — and, later, to Wisconsin’s political establishment — Walker’s decision to quit college has been a lingering mystery.

The observation about this is so obvious, I won’t insult your intelligence by making it.

UPDATE: Howard Dean says people won’t accept someone who didn’t finish college and therefore hates him some evolutions. Evidently evolution would have been among the 34 credits Walker was missing — but he didn’t take them, so now he’s stupid like Bill Gates.

238 Responses to “Presidential Candidate Vetted”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. you know who also didn’t finish college is Madonna and that facebook guy

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  3. I wish we knew even half as much about Obama’s days in college as we do Walker’s.

    gahrie (d91116)

  4. College is for college professors.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. american college is just for people who aren’t scared to be raped by penises anymore

    for other people the risk/reward ratio just doesn’t balance

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  6. You know, there is so much to dislike about this.

    First, the Clerisy’s continual smearing of people they reflexively don’t like. Yet they ignore or excuse people they do.

    I would be so much happier if the press didn’t trust any politician. Heck, I would be ecstatic if voters thought that way.

    Second, I get so exercised when one non-scientist calls another non-scientist unscientific. I’m serious here. I would adore seeing all of the candidates for President (as well as past Presidents) take a pop quiz on basic science from high school. No prep.

    As I think I have mentioned, I know a professor here in the liberal arts who started in on me that Republicans were “antiscience” because of “their” beliefs on evolution and climate issues. So I asked him—not being rude, just interested—about his own knowledge base on those two issues. He quickly became irritable.

    “I just think that if we accuse someone of not understanding something, we should understand the basics of that topic ourselves,” I pointed out.

    He no longer will speak with me.

    Because it’s all religion.

    Can you imagine someone asking the President to explain evolution, even (again) on a high school level? Or, better still, expound on what he thinks about people who don’t believe in the things he doesn’t understand?

    Just more of Teh Narrative, and partisan smearing, folks.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  7. Paper chase for the talentless, but you’re not allowed to say that.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. Eek, I didn’t know Simon was here. Hide me, happyfeet. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  9. don’t make eye contact

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  10. Howard Dean has no qualifications to criticize anybody else, particularly Walker. Dean served as the governor of a state with a population less than Milwaukee County of which Walker served as County Executive for eight years and Vermont has a part-time legislature. BFD.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  11. What do you expect considering the intense vetting of Obama’s collegiate history.

    AZ Bob (34bb80)

  12. vermont’s population is like 100,000 people less than what Alaska has

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  13. But no one can hold a candle to Ted Kennedy’s college career.

    AZ Bob (34bb80)

  14. I hear Scott Walker left to work for the Carlyle Group and the Underground Reich and… whew!! You can guess the rest.

    And he has been known to put dogs on the top of his car!!

    Patricia (5fc097)

  15. But has he been known to eat dogs?

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  16. Walker still has more executive experience than Obama, and always will.
    He has balanced budgets.
    I bet when he wanted to fund “shovel ready” projects, they were actually “shovel ready” and the money was spent completing them.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  17. He hasn’t (ghost)written a book on how he was part of a Choom Gang and used cocaine in high school.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  18. “vermont’s population is like 100,000 people less than what Alaska has”

    Mr. Feets – It’s a bunch of hermits, pot farmers, socialist weirdos and liberal invaders from the NY metro area, but it is our first line of defense against an invasion by the dangerous Canadian menace, hoser.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  19. i thought hoser was irish

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  20. Hozier was born in Bray, County Wicklow, the son of a musician. He began a degree in music at Trinity College, Dublin, but dropped out midway through his first year in order to record demos for Universal Music.

    no way in hell can this possibly be a conincidence

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  21. What’s even worse about this article on Walker is that it is published entirely because the WaPo knows that it will be click bait and comment bait. In just one day it already has 5000+ comments, many of them from smarmy liberals who are saying stuff like “big surprise that a Republican doesn’t have an education” and “I guess he eventually passed all of the Koch Brothers’ tests though,” and other from conservatives wondering like we do why the paper never took this much interest in Obama’s college years. This is yet another sad indictment of what mainstream journalism has become in the era of the Internet. Next thing you know we will start seeing headlines in the WaPo, NYT, and Dog Trainer reading, “Scott Walker Left Marquette His Senior Year and You Won’t Believe What He Did Next.”

    JVW (854318)

  22. there are candidates that are of the body, and those who are heretical to Landrieu

    narciso (ee1f88)

  23. Walker’s answer to the evolution question pretty much makes him the anti-Jon Huntsman as far as approach goes–in other words, he doesn’t go out of the way to antagonize his base out of arrogance and contempt for said base, unlike Huntsman. Given that Huntsman was about as popular as ebola in the Republican primaries in spite of some otherwise fairly solid credentials, there is probably something to be said for being as unlike him in style as possible, and Walker seems to be off to a good start there.

    M. Scott Eiland (8d3966)

  24. M. Scott Eiland – At least Huntsman had hawt daughters, so he had that going for him, which is nice.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. My understanding is Walker attended college 3-1/2 years. I would be concerned if he had not gone at all or if he dropped out after 1 or 2 semesters, but 3-1/2 years might as well be a degree if the issue is what college really teaches us — how to live on our own, how to show up for and pass a course, how to meet and get along with new people, and how to decide what to do with your life. I’m sure Walker did that as well as anyone.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  26. imho, “Evolution” is a word that means one thing to people like Stephen Jay Gould and quite another to people on the street.

    As for Mr Scott (as NYT calls him), I’m wondering if he is as clean as Sarah Palin and waiting for the MSM to crowd source his communications as they did with her.

    seeRpea (aa8044)

  27. Don’t care about college.
    Do care that the guy couldn’t come up with a better answer about evolution. “Science and Politics shouldn’t mix” is just horrible. Science should absolutely inform public policy.

    time123@gmail.com (5250bd)

  28. evolution is my favorite it’s how we got all the different tasty kinds of meat and side dishes

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  29. I didn’t go to college either. I was too busy getting an education.

    Gazzer (964803)

  30. re #27: why? or more precisely, define what you mean by “science”.

    seeRpea (aa8044)

  31. Walker is vrtually unflappable. I watched that execrable Gregory has been go after him like a rabid Pink bundler without a sneer, a hesitation, a note of stress in his timbre, cool as a cucumber.

    I’d have torn his heart out.

    DNF (3642e1)

  32. 25. Exactly, DRJ. He got the education, and he got the job, he just did not get the paper.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. Science is not a political question. Well, except for the eugenicists. And the globe warmers. And Stalinists if there are any left. And Monsanto, let’s not forget Monsanto.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. The left always telegraphs who they fear the most. Good to know…

    Gazzer (964803)

  35. And here I thought we were pals, nk. I go teach a class to people who will be doing our colonoscopies someday, and you get all hatey. You had better hope I’m here. Ouch.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  36. nk, you are being far too limiting. check out articles from the 1990’s about gov’t policy and tv broadcast transmission. For more recent items, how about fat and cholesterol intakes? when these “gov’t approved guidelines” came out there were lots of doctors and dieticians complaining about them. but they didn’t have the money to fight back and the ‘science was settled‘.

    seeRpea (aa8044)

  37. Not only Gates, but Jobs. For he newsmen, also Peter Jennings (high-school dropout) and Brian (“Tail-gunner”) Williams.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. *the

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  39. Wash Po reveals kindergartener Walker once ate a second cookie, not the one he was allotted.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  40. Just got a robocall from the State urging me to take advantage of their home solar energy rooftop panel program to avoid steep increases in my PG&E or SMUD electricity bill.

    About twenty years ago the State outlawed telemarketing. Apparently some telemarketing is more legal than others.

    About forty years ago the State urged my late father to take advantage of their home solar energy rooftop panel program to avoid steep increases in his PG&E or SMUD electricity bill.

    What does the theory of evolution say about a program that demands continuous government support over forty years, coupled with special legal protection to ensure it enjoys monopolistic marketing protections?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  41. Mr. Governor Walker is going to be asked these questions many many many many times over, by many different people in the upcoming two years. I would suggest that he work very hard to come up with some better answers than he has so far. Or, as I also suggested several weeks ago, Governor, take the needed hours and get the damn degree. Worthless piece of paper or not, stupid for media to focus on or not, necessary for a politician or not, it’s going to be an issue for some voters–not just democrats, either–that he could fix. And he can and he should. He also needs a better answer about evolution.

    I like this man very much and I want him to do smart stuff. He needs to take control of the narrative.

    elissa (6e2877)

  42. Patterico,
    Any thoughts on Walker’s brash decision to cut $300Million from the UW system?

    UnitedMind (31e7c5)

  43. “Mr. Governor Walker is going to be asked these questions many many many many times over, by many different people in the upcoming two years.”

    elissa – He should throw the question right back in the smug ignorant reporters’ faces.

    Can you explain what you mean by evolution? Are you talking about punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism? Are you saying you know when life begins, if so can you tell me if life begins at conception?

    Let the heads explode!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  44. Here’s a pie chart of California State expenditures for 2008-2009.

    Looks like the EDU gets the lion’s share. IN a State coming in at 49 out of 50 in acedemic performance.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  45. I would like to point out right here that this is the person who Walker lost to in that Marquette student government election which was heavily featured in the WAPO article. Gee, I wonder who may have subtly suggested to the WAPO that they do an article on Walker’s college years and could have helped furnish some contact information to them?

    http://compass-media.com/about.html

    elissa (6e2877)

  46. daleyrocks, any word yet on whether your lovely and talented congresscrone will be attending the Netanyahu speech to congress?

    elissa (6e2877)

  47. elissa – I do not know. I imagine she will be very conflicted given the electoral population around here.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. “Gee, I wonder who may have subtly suggested to the WAPO that they do an article on Walker’s college years and could have helped furnish some contact information to them?”

    elissa – Another head scratcher.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  49. the whole evolution question wouldn’t be a problem except there’s lots of republican base voters what think evolution is from the devil to where if you believe in the evolution it’s same as denying god like you a judas and you need to repent

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  50. @seeRpea 30

    re #27: why? or more precisely, define what you mean by “science”.

    Are you really asking why science should inform public policy? It is because science is what enables us to know the most about reality. The scientific method enables us to continuously improve our knowledge and build better and better predictive models about our world. Without science you end up with people thinking leeching blood from the sick is a good way to cure them.

    When a public figure “punts” on a question like this it is laughable. Evolution is a scientific theory. Just like Gravity or Relativity. Imagine some politician saying it wasnt for him to answer whether or not he believed in Gravity, or for that matter saying “Nope Relativity just doesnt make sense to me, Im skeptical of it”.

    Gil (febf10)

  51. it’s not that laughable it just shows he’s a wary and cautious lil dude Mr. Gil

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  52. The Wash Po’s coverage – both what is/is not covered – does reveal who those on the Left fear the most. For critical thinkers and fair-minded people, that’s a feature, not a bug.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  53. How does the theory of evolution inform the politics of the Endangered Species Act?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  54. So, when he’s President, should Walker sign a bill repealing the law of gravity?

    nk (dbc370)

  55. And why hasn’t Obama already done it by executive order? WTF can a politician do about the theory of evolution, eh? Or is he supposed to be Mr. Answer Man, maybe?

    nk (dbc370)

  56. I like this man very much and I want him to do smart stuff. He needs to take control of the narrative.

    Republicans don’t get to control Teh Narrative.

    JD (86a5eb)

  57. The whole thing is silly, nk. Elissa, it wouldn’t matter if Walker got his bachelor’s degree. The Left want to label him as stupid and hardhearted. That’s the narrative…no matter what. The truth does not matter. Emotions do.

    I do think that the American public would love it if Walker turned it around, asking the media person: “What are your thoughts about evolution? And do you think your beliefs on a subject outside your own expertise should impact your job prospects? I wish you would ask me about budgets, hard choices, and dealing with criticism.”

    Lots and lots of people have bought into Teh Narrative, and will try to push Walker into it. He should chuckle at them and turn it around.

    …there you go again...” comes to mind.

    Anyway, I invite you to check out Biden’s latest gaffe today.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-gives-shout-out-old-butt-buddy-iowa_849717.html

    This is the fellow the press thought was a great choice to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

    So maybe the questions need to be directed a bit differently.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  58. “The scientific method enables us to continuously improve our knowledge and build better and better predictive models about our world.”

    Gil – Why don’t they follow the scientific method for global warming?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  59. Simon–I think for some it’s not the degree per se as much as it’s trying to understand the quitting part. I don’t understand the quitting after 3 1/2 years part, myself. And since I’m likely to vote for him for an important national office I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to better understand that aspect of his personality and thought process beforehand. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only person on the right who feels this way about it, either.

    elissa (6e2877)

  60. brad pitt quit two weeks before graduation and he made a million dollars and married angelina (sp?) jolie plus that girl that was on friends

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  61. your point is?

    elissa (6e2877)

  62. Gil – could you explain to us how consensus, hiding raw data, and hive-minded hysteria fits into the scientific method? Kthxby

    JD (d550e2)

  63. Elissa – he left because he got a job that he wanted. Pretty much the goal of going to college.

    JD (d550e2)

  64. elissa my point is that Scott Walker inspires me

    he gives me a reason to hope that our politics might could be ennobled once more, bent to a constructive purpose – to amplify freedom and liberty instead of constraining it

    to achieve the betterment of our little country and the prosperity of its denizens

    to place government back into a proper perspective, one that is not obscene and intrusive

    Scott Walker rings true like the truest silver, and you know what?

    I’m ready for Mr. Governor Scott Walker.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  65. When a public figure “punts” on a question like this it is laughable. Evolution is a scientific theory. Just like Gravity or Relativity. Imagine some politician saying it wasnt for him to answer whether or not he believed in Gravity, or for that matter saying “Nope Relativity just doesnt make sense to me, Im skeptical of it”.

    In case you didn’t notice Walker is running for president, not for the Nobel prize in some science. He’s a politician, not a scientist. Some politicians see themselves as some sort of scientists, guys like ALGORE, Obama and Howard Dean. And they are not scientists and they are lousy leaders. Plus when they talk about science they sound like idiots. There is absolutely no reason a politician should need an opinion on evolution, gravity or relativity. It doesn’t matter any more than his opinion/expertise on NASCAR, fine wine or his favorite rock group.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  66. What Hoagie said.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  67. It’s the same reason I try not to talk about science.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  68. hey! you! get offa my virtual private cloud!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  69. btw one of my friends that hates him some scott walker sent me this today – i haven’t had a chance to read it really

    http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/02/12/murphys-law-how-could-walker-refuse-incredible-deal/

    my takeaway though is it’s just one more reason to get rid of Iowa’s silly role in selecting nominees

    All of which raises anew the question: how could Walker possibly turn down this offer? “I think because 600 conservatives in Iowa told him he can’t win the Iowa caucuses (in the Republican presidential race) if he favors the casino,” Barca says.

    Certainly Walker’s timing — he turned down the Kenosha Casino not long after he received the warning from Iowa conservatives — suggests this.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  70. maybe Walker “pities teh Fool”?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  71. What Hoagie said.

    seeRpea (181740)

  72. Obama

    …declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.

    So the media stopped asking questions about it.
    He described one job in New York as

    …a job in an unidentified “consulting house to multinational corporations,” where he is “a spy behind enemy lines,” startled to find himself with a secretary, a suit and money in the bank.

    Yet fellow workers described it as

    a small newsletter-publishing and research firm, with about 250 employees worldwide,… Far from a bastion of corporate conformity, they said, it was informal and staffed by young people making modest wages. Employees called it “high school with ashtrays.”

    Many workers dressed down. Only the vice president in charge of Mr. Obama’s division got a secretary, they said.

    And the media stopped asking questions about it.

    He dismisses in one sentence his first community organizing job — work he went on to do in Chicago — though a former supervisor remembers him as “a star performer.”

    And the media stopped asking questions about it.
    He was raised by dedicated leftists, hung around with leftists on campus, attended Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years and started his career in the living room of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. And yet, he never was asked when his ideas changed, when he began to believe in the United States as a country of opportunity, when he began to believe in the American dream, when he began to believe in traditional American ideals of the free market and individual responsibility.
    I’m sure the MSM will not shirk its duty to vet any and all GOP candidates.

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  73. “Some politicians see themselves as some sort of scientists, guys like ALGORE, Obama and Howard Dean. And they are not scientists and they are lousy leaders.”

    Jackasses of all trades… and masters of none?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  74. “I know a little bit about a lotta things, but I don’t know enough about you”

    – Teh Mills Bros

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  75. 57- I do think that the American public would love it if Walker turned it around, asking the media person: “What are your thoughts about evolution? And do you think your beliefs on a subject outside your own expertise should impact your job prospects? I wish you would ask me about budgets, hard choices, and dealing with criticism.”
    Simon- Walker should hire you.

    mg (31009b)

  76. actually no, Walker’s objection was the crony capitalism behind the casino, but thanks for playing pikachu

    narciso (ee1f88)

  77. thank you for the opportunity

    happyfeet (831175)

  78. Dorothy: How do you talk if you don’t have a brain?

    Scarecrow: Well, some people without brains do an awful lot of talking don’t they?

    Wizard of Oz: Why, anybody can have a brain. That’s a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth or slinks through slimy seas has a brain. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have. But they have one thing you haven’t got: a diploma.

    nk (dbc370)

  79. Dear Howard Dean: You went to college and yet everyone agrees you should not be President.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  80. nk, for the win.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  81. But no one can hold a candle to Ted Kennedy’s college career.

    AZ Bob (34bb80) — 2/12/2015 @ 8:02 am

    B-b-b-but that’s the Lion or the Conscience or the Predator or some such of the Senate you’re talking about!!

    I guess Fat Head Ted sending his Hahhhhhvard career underwater was just a foreshadowing of things to come.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  82. Dear Howard Dean: You went to college and yet everyone agrees you should not be President.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/12/2015 @ 7:20 pm

    C’mon Kevin, ease up. You remember that primal scream Dean did at an appearance for Preznit 404? That’s what I want in a President, yessir. Obama has shown hisself to not have the testicular fortitude for a war whoop like that.

    I have an idea. Pair him up with Dukakis. Use Brittle Peanut as our DefSec. That would give us a setup that ISIS would pee themselves laughing over.

    Bill H (f9e4cd)

  83. The evolution question is pure base-wedge gotcha for Republicans. If he says yes, he offends the, um, salt of the earth, if he says no, he offends the unreligious.

    A similar base-wedge question to ask Dems: “Do you think abortion is an acceptable form of birth control?” Or even “Is abortion a sin?”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  84. I’m still mulling over JVW’s analogy of Stewart to Limbaugh, which I think is a good one. They both combine entertainment and politics, are popular with specific segments of society and effectively speak for those segments, and have carved out their positions without needing the blessing or authority of a political party. I can’t see Stewart having the humility to give that role up but I could see him move into the political arena, especially if it would benefit or involve Elizabeth Warren.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  85. 50. On the contrary what is laughable are those who wax philosophic on issues on which they have no independent opinion having yet to master the rudiments of any discipline dealing with that topic.

    On the one hand, we have literalists like creationist Morris, an engineer by trade, who toss ad hoc critiques of scientific evidence against the wall while simply assuming his scriptural understanding admits no possible error.

    On the other, we have quasi-intellectual gadflies like Stephen Jay Gould, who in Rocks of Ages maintains Xians have no option but to believe in a one week creation circa 6000 years BP; that religious and scientific thought inhabit separate noetic Magesteria.

    Along with good buddy Gil these folk are miserable poseurs.

    DNF (3642e1)

  86. Two subjects the media will always burn GOP candidates on are evolution and first trimester abortion. The former should be simply a closed issue. The GOP candidates feel the need to fiddle to the base with half-assed answers conflating faith and science and humina-humina-humina that any fool, let alone those led by what the media tells them to believe, views as wishy-washy at best. Leaving things open to interpretation as to what one’s faith says, etc. in the context of such wishy-washyness coming from someone vying for the supreme leadership position in the world will be interpreted in the worst possible light of “My god, he thinks the entire universe was created in 4004 BC. What other nonsense informs his world view?” That’s just the way it is. Think of any wishy-washy answer from the leftist tools and you can’t help but understand the damage this does. It puts the GOP back on its heels when it should be sailing under a full wind of Obummer fails. That any GOP candidate at this point in history who is caught by such a question like deer in the headlights shows a significant lack of preparedness. I had high hopes for Walker and I hope that he can pull out of this. I was encouraged by his lack of college degree as this I see as a HUGE positive. But once I saw his evangelical church background, I knew he was gonna get caught by this. How did he nor any of his handlers not understand this and have a good, solid answer is more damning than the answer itself.

    WTP (4090b3)

  87. 87. “Hope he can pull out of this”

    Sure, as we hope you are able to cleanse the wad of ecstasy off’n yer laptop.

    Maggot.

    DNF (d29ab6)

  88. I agree that he needs to work on better answers that turn the tables.

    If one asks the American public whether or not human beings came to be from evolving from a mix of chemicals in seawater, even 40% of dems will say no.
    What science has demonstrated to be true without controversy is actually quite limited if the claim is that all life forms evolved from some early organism that came from something non-living, even “evolutionists” don’t agree as to how they think it happened.
    But following the arguments is a little much for a public (or politicians) that has a hard time understanding that 18 years of satellite data showing no warming means there has been no warming.

    There are highly educated agnostic scholars of various disciplines who eagerly point out the inadequacies of what science claims. Being agnostic re the existence of a god they have faith instead that someday science will take some leap of sophistication that enables an explanation of what is currently unexplainable.

    How to capture a lot of sophistication in a bite people will take home is the challenge.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  89. WTF, DNF? FY back. WTF is your problem DB?

    WTP (066be7)

  90. @Hoagie

    There is absolutely no reason a politician should need an opinion on evolution, gravity or relativity

    Yes there is. As previously discussed science should inform public policy. It goes to the candidates understanding. I want an intelligent president who can comprehend basic scientific theories. I also dont want someone who doublespeaks or gives wishy washy answers. One value that I like to see in a person is “Honesty even when it’s hard”

    @DNF 86. Why dont you go ahead and explain your counterpoint instead of simply attacking me. Its rather childish really, I made explain my opinion and your response is “Oh yeah? Well youre stupid”

    @DNF 87. I thought WTP made a quite good post here and he didnt imply Walker misunderstood things. He simply expressed surprise at the lack of preparation. That didnt keep you from attacking him though. How sad for you. Dont you have anything useful to say?

    Gil (27c98f)

  91. If one asks the American public whether or not human beings came to be from evolving from a mix of chemicals in seawater, even 40% of dems will say no.
    What science has demonstrated to be true without controversy is actually quite limited if the claim is that all life forms evolved from some early organism that came from something non-living, even “evolutionists” don’t agree as to how they think it happened.

    @MD

    Evolution only claims to explain the diversity and adaptation of life to its habitat, not origin. For goodness sakes man, I thought you were a doctor. How can you not know/understand even this basic fact about the theory of evolution? I mean this has nothing to do even with the details of the theory, just what it addresses.

    Gil (27c98f)

  92. I also dont want someone who doublespeaks or gives wishy washy answers. One value that I like to see in a person is “Honesty even when it’s hard”

    So then you voted for Barack Obama the first time. What about the second time? How do you explain it?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  93. Gil,
    As some kind of non-theist, you should understand that even if science could prove some type of evolution (“Darwinian”? “neo-Darminian”?, which version of “neo-Darwinian”?) was the mechanism by which all life forms developed, the big question would remain of how did life begin in the first place, and if science can’t claim the answer to that, the claim that “science has disproved the existence of God” (or even the milder claim that “science has disproved the need to resort to ‘god’ as the cause of life and its diversity”) rings hollow.
    And besides, I don’t recall even one single thing in medicine being dependent on the idea that all life forms evolved from a single organism.
    Natural selection on strains/variants of a given organism such as antibiotic resistance? Sure, no problem with that. But MRSA is still SA, penicillin resistant GC is still GC, and AZT resistant HIV is still HIV, not a new virus spread via respiratory droplets, no matter how many trillions of opportunities it has had to become one.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  94. It is very well established that evolution is a fact. It has happened and is happening. The existence of God no more confirms than denies this fact. Proving or disproving the existence of God is beyond anything in the domain of science. It is a game for philosophers of angels and pins. Only without any need for the pins. There are details and many things that evolution cannot or does not account for, but this no more disproves evolution than the suffering and death of a child disproves the existence of God.

    WTP (066be7)

  95. Gil is not an honest debater.

    nk (dbc370)

  96. Gil is not an honest debater.

    I’ve seen worse.

    WTP (066be7)

  97. the big question would remain of how did life begin in the first place, and if science can’t claim the answer to that, the claim that “science has disproved the existence of God” (or even the milder claim that “science has disproved the need to resort to ‘god’ as the cause of life and its diversity”) rings hollow.

    Hi MD, All of this is completely irrelevant and a sidestep. I didnt bring up Atheism and I didnt claim science disproved god (by the way Science doesnt disprove things). All I said was that you should know better what the theory of evolution is. You misrepresent it by muddling in the origin of life. You dont have to be an expert to know what it addresses. You have a doctorate in a related field. For shame.

    Gil (febf10)

  98. Scott Walker understands all the evolution and how it applies in everyday life for example public employee unions suck ass so America will select for traits where if you’re a scummy union p.o.s. you aren’t going to be catered to like some old lady having tea in Downton Abbey are we clear

    happyfeet (831175)

  99. @papertiger

    So then you voted for Barack Obama the first time. What about the second time? How do
    you explain it?

    Actually the second time I held my nose and voted for Romney and his Magic Underpants.
    The first time went to team R as well.

    Gil (febf10)

  100. Team R just needs a chance at bat Mr. Gil

    and new leadership

    happyfeet (831175)

  101. I don’t think Stewart comes close to Limbaugh, he’s not as much a fool as Sgt, Schultz, but who could be, Rush is an autodidact, who can explain philosophical concepts, Stewart is lost without his teleprompter,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  102. We need a candidate who appeals to a broad spectrum of voters. A good scimitarman to fight off opposition within the party, a stout club wielder to bring in the independents, a handy man with a dirk for committee infighting ….

    nk (dbc370)

  103. Gil – could you explain to us how consensus, hiding raw data, and hive-minded hysteria fits into the scientific

    JD (86a5eb)

  104. @JD 104

    THats the second time youve asked that question. I ignored you the first time because its a loaded question.

    For example:

    Can you explain to us how oppressing people and being ignorant fits into the republican platform?
    Or
    When did you stop beating your wife?

    What you asked doesnt fit into the scientific method at all – you know that.

    -Gil

    Gil (febf10)

  105. I’m still mulling over JVW’s analogy of Stewart to Limbaugh, which I think is a good one.

    I’m not sure about that since Limbaugh seems more focused on ideology and, naturally, the foibles of liberalism in particular, while Stewart, when referring to his philosophical foes, merely goes “ha-ha, they’re so dumb!” or smirks or does a double-take in front of the camera. IOW, he seems more like the type who — even more so than Limbaugh — will avoid saying things along the lines of “they’re so damn leftwing, or “they’re so damn rightwing!”

    Mark (c160ec)

  106. Here’s a guy who knows how to celebrate Valentines day with his favorite person.

    President Barack Obama is spending the holiday weekend in Southern California.

    Obama arrived in Palm Springs on Saturday morning after flying in from San Francisco.

    The president has no public events scheduled during his stay. He’s expected to spend most of his time playing golf, as he has on earlier visits to the area.

    He traveled to California without his wife, Michelle, or their daughters.

    Obama has been in California since Thursday evening. On Friday, he addressed a White House summit at Stanford University on cybersecurity and consumer protection.

    Obama is supposed to return to Washington on Monday — Presidents Day, a federal holiday.

    elissa (691172)

  107. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have.

    Public figures like Bill Clinton, and most gifted notables in general for that matter, are known for having great rote skills or retention. Clinton is described as recalling the faces and names that go with them of people he met years ago. But the gut biases of people with high IQs — if that leads to poor judgment or foolish conclusions, or dishonest reactions — can render their acuity next to worthless.

    Mark (c160ec)

  108. He traveled to California without his wife, Michelle, or their daughters.

    It was also around this time either last year or in 2013 when he spent the President’s Day holiday weekend with his “body man,” Reggie Love, in Florida, while the missus and daughters were in Colorado. There is a pattern there that appears to verify the heard-on-the-grapevine talk about Obama going back over 20 or more years.

    Hey, American people, you’ve got a great, inspiring leader representing you.

    Mark (c160ec)

  109. Rush understands the other’s arguments, Stewart isn’t even aware of them,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  110. My comparison of Jon Stewart to Rush Limbaugh is based upon this: both are comedians who address topical news. If all Rush did was go on the air for three hours and talk conservative politics, his show wouldn’t have lasted this long or had such a huge influence. Rush’s popularity is largely because he delivers his political musings with a heavy dollop of humor. Years back a LA Times media critic, who clearly doesn’t like Rush’s politics, acknowledged in his column that Rush is a first-rate comedian. He especially singled out Paul Skanklin’s parody for high praise.

    Yeah, I don’t care for Stewart’s gross camera mugging and wild gesticulations, and I earlier mentioned that I find the whole comedy genre of “look how much cooler we are than you” to be highly obnoxious. Still, there’s no denying that Stewart is a rallying point for a segment of the left in the same way that Rush is the rallying point for the right.

    JVW (854318)

  111. There are people smarter than me with PhD’s from Berkley and Stanford and Univ. of Chicago and elsewhere in fields including mathematics, molecular biology, biochemistry who have arguments not only pointing out the weaknesses in evolutionary theory, but also make positive arguments from scientific observation and information theory as to why there are significant problems in the “standard evolutionary theory as understood by a 5th grader”. I put it that way because once you get past the 5th grade level idea of “everything evolving from one organism” even people within the field disagree.

    But it is a problem on how to communicate scientific concepts at the level of PhD research to the average person on the street.

    Besides, the interrelation between God and evolution was first pointed out to me by a faculty member at the Univ. of Wisconsin who asked the (presumed rhetorical) question, “If God created things, why did He only put only finches on the Galapagos islands?”
    I wasn’t even a Christian then, but I had a suspicion that if that was the best she had then her hand was pretty weak.
    Adaptations to fill various niches of an ecosystem from one “primordial” finch (err, I guess pair of finches) I have no problem with, it is saying that finches and spiders and alligators and humans and kangaroos and the platypus all have a common ancestor way, way back is what I have a problem with, and even if it is true, by no means has science proven this to be true anymore than it has proven that gravitons pulling on each other is how gravity works.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  112. finches and turtles too

    the turtles would look at the finches and say hello finches how is your day up there in the trees

    and the finches would say hi turtles it’s lovely up here in the trees how is it for you down there on the ground?

    pretty good the turtles would say

    meanwhile evolution rested not

    happyfeet (831175)

  113. I noticed that Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, didn’t even attend university, as he had the trading floor as his classroom, whereas conventional thinkers like Cameron and Clegg are properly credentialed acolytes of the skydragon

    narciso (ee1f88)

  114. it is saying that finches and spiders and alligators and humans and kangaroos and the platypus all have a common ancestor way, way back is what I have a problem with, and even if it is true, by no means has science proven this to be true anymore than it has proven that gravitons pulling on each other is how gravity works.

    Do you have a better explanation? Do you have a problem with lemurs, monkeys, and orangatangs having some common ancestors? What would “science” need to provide to “prove” this to you?

    WTP (066be7)

  115. There are people smarter than me with PhD’s from Berkley and Stanford and Univ. of Chicago and elsewhere in fields including mathematics, molecular biology, biochemistry who have arguments not only pointing out the weaknesses in evolutionary theory, but also make positive arguments from scientific observation and information theory as to why there are significant problems in the “standard evolutionary theory as understood by a 5th grader”. I put it that way because once you get past the 5th grade level idea of “everything evolving from one organism” even people within the field disagree.

    No level of understanding, 5th grade or otherwise, includes the origin of life within the theory of evolution. Yet you continue to obfuscate and misdirect instead of correcting yourself. It is a sad commentary. Furthermore that evolution happened is well established and not in dispute. The arguments are about how it happened. Again it is a theory just like the theory of Gravity. That Gravity is real is independent of our understanding of how it actually happens.

    It does not require people to abandon god. Plenty of religious people believe that god helped evoltion along the way. I think the much better question than what you quoted above

    “If God created things, why did He only put only finches on the Galapagos islands?”

    Is: If the bible is true and there was a worldwide flood and all creatures in the world came out of a single landing point, how can it be that kangaroos and koalas are found only in Australia – quite far from the middle east, without leaving any evidence of migration.

    Gil (febf10)

  116. you voted for this yutz, right:

    http://www.redstate.com/2015/02/10/obama-burns-another-us-alliance,

    now pipe down

    narciso (ee1f88)

  117. Do you have a better explanation?
    Some would call that the “Evolution of the gaps” argument, that if one can’t explain something, just say “evolution did it”.

    As an off-the-cuff answer-
    science would need to show me that instead of evolution explaining variation of a species, which I have no problem with, that random changes in the language/blueprint/computer code of a cell can result in new/additional meaningful information that adds to the complexity of an organism.
    “Proving” something is a more nebulous concept than we usually realize. What we can “prove” is that at times one explanation of a phenomenon is consistent with a given theory of how something is supposed to work.
    And even if science can demonstrate that in some limited example, that does not imply that the same process can explain the development of the human brain-mind phenomenon.
    (See Mind and Cosmos by Nagel; http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-and-cosmos/?_r=0).

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  118. wouldn’t proof include replicatable behavior, in stead of just interesting data, an Alaskan friend of mine, tipped me to McCalman’s Darwin’s Armada, which illustrates how his theory was propagated, not unlike the AGW selective peer review,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  119. Obfuscation is in the mind of the beholder.

    Yes, gravity is real and independent whether we actually understand it or not. Our science is so advanced and able to explain so much, yet the fact that we fall and scrape our knee can only be described by a mathematical formula, yet we can’t explain what “makes gravity work” at all,
    and that is of no practical concern to a structural engineer, now is it?

    So, whether we know what happened to Archaeopteryx millions of years ago or not, what does that have to do with governing the US in 2015?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  120. not unlike the AGW selective peer review,
    narciso (ee1f88) — 2/14/2015 @ 12:32 pm

    or government dietary recommendations concerning sugar and fats

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  121. What would “science” need to provide to “prove” this to you?

    Um, you do understand how science works right? Hint: it’s not by saying “There is a certain amount of evidence suggesting that proposition X might be true, therefore proposition X must be irrefutably true.”

    JVW (854318)

  122. I believe you were the one who asked that question, JVW.

    I believe the original insinuation was that to doubt whether evolution has been demonstrated to be true or not (by science or any other manner) is to be counted against one’s being capable of being president.

    So, if you want to say that to not be convinced of “evolution” being proven true by science is not a big deal, then there has been no point in bringing anything up about this at all.

    By the way, I do not believe I have belittled you or have been derogatory, though I feel your remark of whether I “understand how science works” to be so. I have an honors thesis on file at the Univ. of Wisconsin Chemistry library on the organic synthesis of enzyme inhibitors and their in vitro testing and characterization, which in one way is no big thing at all.

    You have suggested that I do not know how science works, apparently thinking I am asking science to do something it cannot do.
    On the contrary, I am pointing out that science indeed does not prove as much as some would have us believe, and that it is not illogical to disbelieve something that merely has an amount of evidence suggesting it might be true and has not been irrefutably proven to be true.

    But in any case, I’ve already acknowledged there are smarter and more skilled people than I available to address such issues.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  123. Do you think what I was asking science to demonstrate was too big to ask? Really, if you think it is likely that some prokaryotic blob of protoplasm eventually developed the complexity of not only a human body but a human brain along the way, then showing just one or two steps out of billions should not be that hard to do.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  124. Yes, JVW. I know quite well how science works. I also know fallacious arguments when I see one. And yours is called a strawman. There is also a considerable amount of obfuscation going on here. It is easy to poke holes in anything. As I point out to leftists who piss and moan about capitalism or Amerrican “hegemony”, nothing is perfect. But absent a better theory you go with the most plausible. Science can never “prove” evolution as there is no reasonable experiment with proper controls and such. But that doesn’t mean it can’t inform us where provable facts are hard to come by. Don’t like evolution? Fine. But before we dive in to even evolution, a common understanding of the knowledge of what exists before evolution would help.

    How old do you think the universe is? Why do you think that?

    WTP (066be7)

  125. night falled down on the gapagus islands and yawns fell from the trees down on top the turtle heads

    night lil finches up there in the trees, said the turtles

    sleep good turtles, the finches chirpled back

    meanwhile evolution rested not

    happyfeet (831175)

  126. So, whether we know what happened to Archaeopteryx millions of years ago or not, what does that have to do with governing the US in 2015?

    Once again. Science should inform policy. Does this candidate regard Science as a good measure of the world around him/her or is he/she unreasonably clinging to a document published by iron age peasants is fair to understand. It is a worthwhile question to ask to see if someone will be honest even in the face of possible political fallout.

    science would need to show me that instead of evolution explaining variation of a species, which I have no problem with, that random changes in the language/blueprint/computer code of a cell can result in new/additional meaningful information that adds to the complexity of an organism.

    Oh goodness. Way to parrot creationist pseudoscientific objections to evolution. Be honest with yourself and do honest research encompassing all sources. Dont restrict yourself to psychobabble or creationist sources that work backwards from a conclusion. The book you pointed to from Nagel is a philosophers point of view. How ridiculous would it be for me to say “Hey everyone Quantum Theory is bunk, look at this philosopher’s book over here”?

    Evidence for evolution is abundant. It is all over scientific literature, museums and in the public for everyone to easily access and understand. Whether it is the fossil record or in our DNA which has again and again shown how related all life is on a molecular level. Speciation has been demonstrated in labs. It is over. There is NO serious scientific debate about if evolution happened. Only how it happened.

    And oh by the way, Im still waiting to see if you are honest enough to say you were wrong to lump evolution in with the origin of life. Dont worry I wont hold my breath.

    Gil (febf10)

  127. was this policy informed by science?

    NO?

    remove it from my sight

    happyfeet (831175)

  128. Gil,
    you can be quite insulting when you want to be, can’t you?
    After suggesting that I am not well read enough, did you bother reading Nagel?

    Sorry for confusing who wrote what between JVW and WTP.

    I have it on very good authority that Gov. Walker appreciates the use of science. Rumor has it that he lives in a house with electricity and central heating, and he drives an automobile. Even if it is a “gas-guzzling” old automobile there is quite a lot of physics and chemistry that goes into making it work. I think he is very much into the appropriate use of technology, how scientific understanding is applied to the affairs of everyday life to make life better for the human race (even for democrats who tried to vote him out of office before his time).

    Thanks for reminding me to pray for you, Gil. That working backwards from a conclusion stuff can be subtle.

    As far as how old the universe is, I don’t know. I remember seeing 13.7 billion years or so according to this article: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html, but it also says that perhaps it had no beginning.
    But I am more versed in mechanisms of organic chemical reactions, “pushing electrons” rather than wondering how they came to be in the first place.

    My understanding is that those who know Hebrew much better than I (which isn’t hard) say that the passages in Genesis use language that can be translated and interpreted in various ways. Looking at the Bible as an authoritative source (which I do, FWIW) does not mean a wooden literal interpretation. When the psalmist talks about being “hid under the shelter of God’s wings” he is not suggesting God is a giant bird, for example.
    Our host is known to bring up the use and interpretation of language from time to time. It’s a common problem.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  129. Oh, in case it wasn’t clear enough, I eagerly and enthusiastically acknowledge that how life began is seen as a topic distinct from the evolution of all things living from that lipid micelle (it would seem) with a smattering of something like nucleic acid and protein sequestered inside it.

    I did not explicitly equate the two, I was simply recognizing that if science intends to explain every phenomenon related to life on this planet, then it has to explain the origin of life as well.
    (Which actually was what first got me interested in biochemistry in jr. high in the first place, methane and ammonia and electric sparks and all). And since functionally many (though not all) see “Evolution” as proving that no God exists (it doesn’t exactly follow logically, but I’m not the one making the claim), they have to come up with an explanation for how life began.

    Besides, I imagine some would call the steps from non-life to life “Biochemical evolution”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  130. The more I’ve thought about this, the more impressed I am with Walker. It takes courage to drop out of college but he did it and succeeded. That’s uncommon and positive, in my book.

    Now I hope he will reject comprehensive immigration reform, instead of trying to find a middle ground.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  131. Yes, JVW. I know quite well how science works. I also know fallacious arguments when I see one. And yours is called a strawman. There is also a considerable amount of obfuscation going on here. It is easy to poke holes in anything. As I point out to leftists who piss and moan about capitalism or Amerrican “hegemony”, nothing is perfect. But absent a better theory you go with the most plausible. Science can never “prove” evolution as there is no reasonable experiment with proper controls and such.

    Begging your pardon, WTP, but it was you who asked MD in Philly — and I quote — “What would ‘science’ need to provide to ‘prove’ this to you?” I’m glad that you are acknowledging that it is folly to try to “prove” evolution is true, especially the hardcore evolution that the more militant Darwinists like to promote. Your prior arguments led me to believe that you think that the sort of infallible militant Darwinism has been decisively proven. You admit now that this is not the case? If I am guilty of using strawmen then your are certainly guilty of moving the goalposts.

    JVW (854318)

  132. But just so you don’t go ascribing anti-evolution beliefs to me, I acknowledge here that a great deal of evolutionary theory is undoubtedly true.

    JVW (854318)

  133. 50. @seeRpea 30

    re #27: why? or more precisely, define what you mean by “science”.

    Are you really asking why science should inform public policy? It is because science is what enables us to know the most about reality. The scientific method enables us to continuously improve our knowledge and build better and better predictive models about our world. Without science you end up with people thinking leeching blood from the sick is a good way to cure them.

    When a public figure “punts” on a question like this it is laughable. Evolution is a scientific theory. Just like Gravity or Relativity. Imagine some politician saying it wasnt for him to answer whether or not he believed in Gravity, or for that matter saying “Nope Relativity just doesnt make sense to me, Im skeptical of it”.

    Gil (febf10) — 2/12/2015 @ 12:27 pm

    People who think exactly like you, that Christian fundamentalists are nutcase “science deniers,” gave us Detroit and Kali.

    Steve57 (2430ba)

  134. Actually, nothing Einstein has come up with has been tested, proven, or put into practical use. There’s some claim about GPS but it’s a stretch — it’s little more than Ptolemaic geometry.

    Does this mean I question man-made nuclear fusion? Yes, yes, it does.

    nk (dbc370)

  135. Looking at the Bible as an authoritative source (which I do, FWIW) does not mean a wooden literal interpretation.

    So how do you interpret the world being completely so that the mountains every were covered with 15 cubits to spare?

    you can be quite insulting when you want to be, can’t you?
    After suggesting that I am not well read enough, did you bother reading Nagel?

    Im sorry but it really is tiresome having to fight misinformation. I read the link you pointed me to and find it lacking. Like I said, what a philosopher has to say on scientific theory is pointless. That it informs views about the validity of a scientific theory is sad.

    I eagerly and enthusiastically acknowledge that how life began is seen as a topic distinct from the evolution….

    I am glad that you acknoweledge it. If you look back your first post delving into the topic mixed the two together in a hypothetical poll of democrats in an effort to show that it wasnt extreme for people not to believe in evolution. That was poorly written, and wrong.

    Besides, I imagine some would call the steps from non-life to life “Biochemical evolution”.

    Others might call it Abiogenesis. If those others had looked into it even a cursory amount.

    Gil (27c98f)

  136. So how do you interpret the world being completely so that the mountains every were covered with 15 cubits to spare?

    Do you really need help with this? The ark was 30 cubits tall. It couldn’t have floated over them unless the the flood covered the highest mountains were covered by at least that amount.

    Do I believe this literally? No. It’s written to express the universality of God’s judgement.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A37-39&version=NIV

    37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

    Steve57 (2430ba)

  137. Yes, JVM. That’s why I put “science” and “prove” in quotes. I find I hardly ever agree with anyone who is hardcore on anything.

    don’t go ascribing anti-evolution beliefs to me, I acknowledge here that a great deal of evolutionary theory is undoubtedly true.
    So basically, we agree. Why argue? The context of this discussion is that Walker could not give a straight answer to a simple question. If one believes that a great deal of evolutionary theory is undoubtedly true, one should not have a problem answering “yes” to a question “Do you believe in evolution?”. Not to apply his perception to yours but in the context of what we are discussing here, what’s the point? If asked “Do you believe in God?” many, many people who haven’t darkened the doorway of a church in decades will still answer “yes”. In that context much of this thread is rather silly.

    WTP (066be7)

  138. It was a “Have you stopped beating your wife” question. I’m sorry you didn’t like his answer, WTP. I want you to know that we all love you and support as your recover from this trauma that was inflicted on you.

    nk (dbc370)

  139. Gill
    I officially grant you the last word, though that does not mean I acknowledge you have bested me.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  140. 43. “Mr. Governor Walker is going to be asked these questions many many many many times over, by many different people in the upcoming two years.”

    elissa – He should throw the question right back in the smug ignorant reporters’ faces.

    Can you explain what you mean by evolution? Are you talking about punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism? Are you saying you know when life begins, if so can you tell me if life begins at conception?

    Let the heads explode!
    daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/12/2015 @ 11:39 am

    I’d suggest throwing it back at them a different way. Science isn’t a matter of faith. It’s a matter of reason and knowledge. I’m sure like most liberals Barack Obama “believes in” science. I’m sure he “believes in” math, too. Too bad he doesn’t know a damned thing about them.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/and-god-saw-that-it-was-good.html

    …Athanasius Kircher, the Jesuit polymath, climbed into the wicker basket. He was in the prime of his life, tanned and muscular from his tireless travels and scientific investigations. “All right, boys,” he said, “send me down.” And his comrades lowered him into the ominous crater of Mount Vesuvius. But they were used to Father Kircher’s eccentricities. He’d sailed to Sicily to inspect the towering and ever-roiling Mount Etna, and to the volcanic island of Stromboli, which had recently erupted. Then they felt a single tug on the rope, and they stopped lowering the basket, clinching the pulleys. “Nothing in God’s world should escape our notice and our wonder,” Father Kircher used to say, his eyes glittering like a child’s. But for all the wealth of his learning — in ancient and Oriental languages, medicine, astronomy, philosophy, mathematics, optics, and geology — he had a simple piety. “Someday,” he said, “I’ll build a great shrine in honor of the Mother of God” — but that would not come to pass for many years.

    Meanwhile, his fellow Jesuits sent him samples of plants and bones from all over the world, which he collected and analyzed, along with the bones of a mammoth he had himself found in Sicily. These things are still to be seen in the museum he founded at the Roman College.

    All Creatures of Our God and King

    It shouldn’t surprise us that many of the most accomplished scientists in history, from Father Roger Bacon (the medieval chemist) to Father Gregor Mendel (the man whose humble botanical work earned him the right to be called the father of genetics) to Father George Lemaître (the astrophysicist to whom we owe the theory of the Big Bang) were associated with the Church. That it does surprise us is due not to the Church’s suspicion of science, since she has always and energetically promoted the study of the natural world, but rather to bigotries spawned in the self-named Enlightenment and accepted even today by people who don’t know their history and who sometimes despise the Church for reasons that have nothing to do with the sun and the other stars. The bone of the mastodon is a weapon ready to hand for dealing blows about the Church’s head, and that’s all.

    But the deep reason why the Church has been a friend to natural science is to be found in Genesis and the Gospel of John. For God in the beginning created all things and declared them each to be good, and the whole of the world together, very good….

    …I’d go so far as to say that without the Church, science as we know it would not have developed. It wasn’t an accident…

    …But the Jews and the Christians believed not only in an ordered and beautiful world, but in a providential world with a beginning and an end, a goal, in the mysterious Kingdom of God to which the prophets testify…

    …Thomas Aquinas deserves far more than a paragraph or two here! But he illuminates for us why faith and reason are fast friends. He traveled all the way to Cologne, where he became the star pupil of Albert, called Albert the Great for his encyclopedic learning. Albert was, like Athanasius Kircher and like the pagan Aristotle whose works he embraced and learned from, a biologist, a collector, and analyzer of plants and animals from wherever he could acquire them. Many skittish theologians feared that Aristotle’s emphasis on the world about us would blind us to the world beyond, but in their fear lurked a heretical deprecation of matter, and not the joyful wonder of Genesis. Thomas helped to save the world for the faith, and the faith for the world.

    We should call him Saint Thomas of the Creation, said G.K. Chesterton. All scientists, whether they know it or not, are deeply indebted to him and to the Mother who fostered him.

    Anybody who would ask that question that way is operating on prejudice and blind faith. Which is what led us having Obama the historical and mathematical and scientific illiterate in the first place. They had blind faith in those empty credentials he acquired at Columbia and Harvard, for one thing.

    Steve57 (2430ba)

  141. Well golly geewiz, thanks nk. And God’s good blessings to you and your loved ones as well.

    WTP (066be7)

  142. I like Walker. A lot. But it does not pay to be too invested in a politician, either for or against. It always leads to disappointment.

    nk (dbc370)

  143. Do you really need help with this? The ark was 30 cubits tall. It couldn’t have floated over them unless the the flood covered the highest mountains were covered by at least that amount.

    Ok does that include Mt Everest? Because at that altitude people and animals start freezing to death and suffering from lack of oxygen. Especially after almost a year.

    Do I believe this literally? No. It’s written to express the universality of God’s judgement.

    This is exactly what Im asking. How do you interpret the story. It seems that its quite literally meant and many MANY people take it that way. I mean there are specific instructions and details about how animals should come on board, how long the flood lasted, that god was going to wipe the flesh off the face of the earth. How exactly do you reconcile that with not taking it literally?

    Furthermore, how do you go about determining what supposed to be taken literally and not? People differ on this all the time. I mean who are we to try to interpret the perfect word of God anyways? Seems to me it all has to be literal.

    And maybe you can talk a little more about the universality of gods judgement. So in essence were saying that because some of God’s creations messed up really bad (by the way he had full foreknowledge of this of course) so bad in fact that he needed a “redo” (why do you need redos if you have full foreknowledge?) so he killed EVERYTHING. That doesnt seem fair. I mean when a murderer gets the death penalty we dont kill his pets or babies.

    Well there i go rambling again.
    Sorry i kind of bounced around, but its all just so silly.

    Gil (27c98f)

  144. Gil never fails to flaunt his anti-Christian hatred. It always wins out.

    JD (86a5eb)

  145. Hi JD,
    Please do point out the hateful part of my last post.
    Sure Im making light of your sacred book, but I dont hate it or you. I just find it funny in places. Whats wrong with that?

    Gil (27c98f)

  146. We should compare Scott Walkers’ grades and his FINANCIAL AID applications with Obama’s.
    Libtards/Marxists are going to get their candy azzes handed to them again.

    Gus (7cc192)

  147. That doesnt seem fair.
    Short catechism:
    “I’m God. You’re not”

    Fair? You want to tell God what’s fair? The only truly good person in the history of the world tortured to death to pay the debt you owed? Is that “fair”? If God was merely “fair” we would be in even a worse mess, by far.
    Well, you are in good company, with the likes of Job, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Peter, James and John, etc.
    You apparently ignored my comment about understanding the language of the Bible. In one way it is no different than reading any book for understanding, it has language that is poetic and metaphorical as well as that that is meant to be taken concretely, and when it gives details, just like any story, the absence of one detail in one account is not necessarily a conflict with another account, like the 6 blind men and the elephant.
    But the instructions say it is best understood when read with humility.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  148. Meanwhile, the NYT publishes claims, PowerLine contends it is in error, commenters claim that PL is wrong and give links:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/hilarious-new-york-timesron-fournier-scott-walker-fail.php

    My little bit of following up (my computer having trouble handling the layers of ads) suggests that the claims of PL being wrong are a bit over-inflated.
    We used to have some people here who would claim something and offer a link, I guess assuming no one would follow it*, as often it would say the opposite of the claim.

    *I guess they could have simply misread what they were posting, but it seemed more likely they were trying to bluff a position.

    What thinks others?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  149. 148. Re: Fairness. While the interests of epistemology are my focus in the Body because of my gifts the overriding focus of the Xian must always be their individual ‘walk with God’.

    Not one of us can do anything to save another, our best effort is required smply to endure to the end and somehow be accounted ‘good and faithful’.

    Many here have reported significant challenges circumstances in their lives are presenting them, but in every case He is sufficient to overcome.

    I’m copacetic with Gil’s opting for the low, easy road. GLWT.

    DNF (088333)

  150. Fair? You want to tell God what’s fair? The only truly good person in the history of the world tortured to death to pay the debt you owed? Is that “fair”? If God was merely “fair” we would be in even a worse mess, by far.

    Oh boy. So the best way god could figure out to “pay our debt” was to send himself down to earth and have himself hideously tortured and killed? And then he sent the word out into iron age palestine into a time in history that he knew would have poor documentation and leave a bunch of well meaning people with questions. He engineered it so that for thousands of years theh “good news” would never reach countries like India and China where billions of people would be condemened to an eternity of hell just for the finite crime of not believing in something they never heard of.

    Buts its ok. Hes god. He can do that.

    But the instructions say it is best understood when read with humility.

    I dont see how this instruction helps anyone get to the truth. There are countless interpretations of scripture. Which is right? Nobody knows. Was Adam a metaphor? Ive heard some say yes. Was it literal? Ive heard some say yes. Same with the flood. Steve is on record above saying he doesnt believe it literally. Do you? Even more troubling there were tribunals that voted – YES VOTED – on what gospels would be included into the new testament. But the troubles dont end there. There are tons of stories that predate the bible that are obviously borrowed from. There are many figures claimed to be sons of god, as many also claimed to die and rise from the dead Osiris is a good example. Youtube up a talk by Dr Richard Carrier take an honest listen and judge for yourself.

    Or just yell out about me hating Christians and ignore me. Im more used to that.
    -Gil

    Gil (febf10)

  151. 151. The minimum requirement for the reader of any work of fiction is a suspension of disbelief enabling appreciation.

    You are incapable of meeting the minimum demand of understanding.

    You are of no interest whatever.

    DNF (088333)

  152. “He engineered it so that for thousands of years theh “good news” would never reach countries like India and China where billions of people would be condemened to an eternity of hell just for the finite crime of not believing in something they never heard of.”

    Gil – He should he have tweeted them the Good News!

    One of your most moronic arguments yet.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  153. 153. Indeed, Paul’s midrash on Abram’s Mt. Moriah Covenant of Faith in Romans chapter 4 blows that simplistic argument away from wherever it might arise.

    Again arguments from authority are fallacious. Stand on your own two feet, children.

    DNF (088333)

  154. @DNF

    Thats nice that you have a different interpretation. But Jesus said “no one comes to the father but through me” John 14:6. I have asked many ministers about that. Some speak in circles around it, other more directly answer that non believers goto hell regardless of the reason. Even Hindus in India who never heard of it.

    Gil (febf10)

  155. Gil seems to be insisting that the only possible interpretation of the Bible is the strictly literal one. This is a boring game; don’t play it.

    Chuck Bartowski (3e0e89)

  156. Gil, did you not read my comment @141? Did you not comprehend it? The Bible isn’t a science book. It’s about the nature of God the Creator.

    In 2013 due to the discoveries of the European Space Agency’s Planck Space Telescope that the universe is slightly older than previously thought. Based upon their discoveries concerning cosmic microwave background radiation (the oldest light in the universe, as in, “Let there be light”) the estimated age of the universe has been revised up from 13.7 billion to 13.82 billion years.

    Whose theory is this research confirming? A Catholic priests. Father Georges Lemaitre.

    Who named it the “Big Bang” theory? An atheist scientist, Fred Hoyle, in 1949. And he used it as a term of derision. Because he recognized the implications it would have. If you could pinpoint the moment of creation, that would imply a Creator. Hoyle spent years trying to come up with an alternative theory not because he could refute Lemaitre’s theory but simply because he didn’t like the theological implications if the “Big Bang” theory was correct.

    Now that’s a science denier. To reject the evidence because it conflicts with your ideology. Which leads to the large point. There is a fringe of Christians who reject science. But they pale in comparison to the number of atheists who reject science.

    To take another example, abortion enthusiasts have for years insisted that a fetus is just a blob of tissue. Destroying it is no more significant than removing an appendix.

    But we know through the science of genetics that’s simply not true. At the moment of conception (not implantation) that a new life is created. A new human being, already male or female with DNA not of its father or of its mother but uniquely its own.

    In fact, an atheist French medical doctor and researcher who made the critical discovery back in the 1950s while attempting to isolate the gene responsible for Down’s syndrome converted to Christianity and became an ardent pro-life advocate for the rest of his life because he understood the inescapable conclusions of his discovery.

    Meanwhile, what did the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists do? In the 1960s they changed their definition of when pregnancy begins from conception to implantation entirely for ideological reasons. In the manner of Fred Hoyle. They understood the implications, too, but attempted to paper over them.

    Now, we get treated to the likes of liberal atheist lesbian Sally Kohn attempting to argue that there’s no such thing as an abortifacient. That drugs like Plan B which prevents implantation aren’t killing a human being because of ACOG’s entirely political definition of when pregnancy begins. They are simply contraceptives. And that Christians such as the owners of Hobby Lobby are out of their minds when they requested and received a conscience objection so that they didn’t have to provide coverage that included such drugs.

    But the science is entirely on the side of the Christians. Sally Kohn and her ilk have to deny it.

    So you’re barking up the wrong tree, Gil. Again. Christianity isn’t the enemy of reason. Liberalism, which goes hand in hand with atheism, is the enemy of reason.

    Perhaps you need to read Aquinas.

    Steve57 (e8b1a9)

  157. I forget the French doctor’s name at the moment.

    Steve57 (e8b1a9)

  158. Hi Steve

    First of all, I read your comment 141. But, no its not your comment its you simply copying and pasting someone elses opinion. I really dont care to argue against someone else by proxy. Now that you have written something on your own (bravo) ill respond.

    The Bible isn’t a science book. It’s about the nature of God the Creator.

    Wonderful to see you say that. I dont think its a science book either. Tell me what it says about the nature of an all knowing all powerful being who has to resort to killing innocents (literally or metaphorically) in order to redo a creation he knew would go wrong in the first place? Tell me what it says about a being who puts a thought crime (You shall not covet) in the top 10 of his important commandments but leaves out “You shall not own a human being”. Tell me what it says about a being who would commit you to hell for eternity for a finite crime.

    Sorry for the sidetrack there, returning to your post.

    It really isnt so interesting or relevant to pick individual cases out of one atheist who was wrong or one priest who was right. It doesnt really prove anything. Newton was a genius who developed the theory of gravity. He also was an ardent alchemist. Does this mean he was an enemy of reason? Does it throw out his other work? Hardly.

    I also find it quite amusing that you hold up Christianity as a beacon of scientific thought. Sure today there are plenty of Christian scientists and good ones. But it was not too long ago Christians were burning heretics at the stake, drowining witches, and doing other such nonsense.

    Gil (febf10)

  159. Ok, Gil give an argument, based on logic and not on sentiment, why you should not own a human being, besides the fact that slaves are usually shiftless and lazy and even if you whip them they will not be as productive as a free person who came there to work for you.

    nk (dbc370)

  160. But it was not too long ago Christians were burning heretics at the stake, drowining witches, and doing other such nonsense.

    And at the same time, scientists thought the most effective medical treatment was letting out blood. At one time, they believed the uterus would move around the body, causing momentary insanity in women. Even more recently, they thought space was filled with an infinitely dense material called Ether, because that was necessary for light to travel as a transverse wave.

    What’s your point?

    Did Christians do or believe ignorant things in the past? Yup. So did non-Christians. We’ve all learned over time.

    Chuck Bartowski (3e0e89)

  161. Hi nk.

    I accept your challenge to argue against slavery – although I am quite surprised that I would have to do such a thing.

    I want to maximize human flourishing and well being. I want to minimize human suffering. Restricting the trafficking and bondage of human beings will accomplish both of those things because, for one, those in bondage are necessarily suffering. The well being of humankind increased when slavery is outlawed because it encourages freedom which is a natural human desire.

    What would your reason be to disallow slavery?

    Gil (febf10)

  162. Gil doesn’t have a point, he’s like a collection of Bill Maher memes.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  163. Did Christians do or believe ignorant things in the past? Yup. So did non-Christians. We’ve all learned over time.

    Correct, however it is the Church that has been dragged this way kicking and screaming, far behind by science and modern thinking. For example only in 2010 did the Church open the door to using condoms in Africa to help prevent the spread of HIV. How long had it been evident that this would save tens of thousands of lives?

    Gil (febf10)

  164. It’s very nice of you guys to slop the pig, considering it isn’t our pig. I’ve got hot towels waiting for you to clean yourselves up with in case your are muddied

    felipe (56556d)

  165. Those are still metaphysical ideals just like “Love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself”. You’re not objecting to the Higher Power, your problem is the rules. You’d like yours better than the bitter clingers’.

    What would your reason be to disallow slavery?

    Empathy. Like old Abe said, I don’t want somebody else to be a slave just as I wouldn’t want to be one.

    nk (dbc370)

  166. more to the point, remember the embryonic stem cell scam, that put Mcaskill in office, Piltdown man was more subtle,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  167. Correct, however it is the Church that has been dragged this way kicking and screaming, far behind by science and modern thinking.

    No, that’s not true at all. The Church has supported the sciences for ages. You’ve already been given examples of that, now you’re just being dishonest. In fact, the Church has been at or near the front for a long time. We use something called the Gregorian calendar; any guesses as to who it’s named after?

    For example only in 2010 did the Church open the door to using condoms in Africa to help prevent the spread of HIV.

    You really need to read the book “Broken Promises”. It’s all about what was really working in Africa (especially Uganda) before liberals started forcing condom use as the panacea to prevent AIDS. It was written by a very hard-core liberal man, and was quite an eye-opener.

    Again, if you criticize Christians for some ignorance that happened in the 1600s, you open yourself up to ridicule from people who can actually think.

    Chuck Bartowski (3e0e89)

  168. Got it, Gil. You reject God because He isn’t as perfect as you. That’s the typical atheist reaction to the world. But it’s not impressive. It’s an act of teenaged rebellion. Flip the premise around; there is no all-powerful creator. If that’s true, there’s nothing to get outraged about. Nobody to get angry at. There is no guilt or innocence.

    There is nobody for you to feel superior to. And nobody for you to reject. So in a way you’re answering your own questions.

    Tell me what it says about the nature of an all knowing all powerful being who has to resort to killing innocents (literally or metaphorically) in order to redo a creation he knew would go wrong in the first place? Tell me what it says about a being who puts a thought crime (You shall not covet) in the top 10 of his important commandments but leaves out “You shall not own a human being”. Tell me what it says about a being who would commit you to hell for eternity for a finite crime.

    You just don’t realize it. So on the other hand if there is a God why should He bring you into Heaven with him if you reject him as not good enough for you?

    I also find it quite amusing that you hold up Christianity as a beacon of scientific thought. Sure today there are plenty of Christian scientists and good ones.

    You only find it amusing because you don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about. Earlier I mentioned the fact that Walker’s questioner phrased that gotcha question out of bigotry and ignorance. That would be anti-religious bigotry and historical and scientific ignorance. You should look into a mirror as well. Or, better yet, try to go beyond the cliff notes-version of history, science, the meaning of the Ten Commandments, what the Bible actually says about slavery,…

    Well, the cliff-notes version for everything as you’re clearly operating from them, Gil.

    Steve57 (e8b1a9)

  169. Calling people names, insisting that they are idiots for (possibly) being wrong on a philosophical matter, using strawman and other fallacious arguments while simultaneously accusing them of presenting an extreme position they obviously don’t endorse, may feel good but only undermines one’s position, drives away potential allies, and exposes insecurities.

    The greatest threat to any cause are the zealots who support it.

    WTP (8894aa)

  170. g’morning lil finches up in the trees wake up wake up it’s time to flipperflap around in the sky! said the turtles

    g’morning yourself turtles said the finches it looks like another beautiful day for flipperflappering around in the sky

    indeed it does said the turtles but not for us today were making gnocchi from scratch cause of jeremy got a new pasta maker

    happyfeet (831175)

  171. Ooh, there’s nothing like fresh pasta. But I like the flat wide noodles. Do you use cinnamon in your sauce? Cloves?

    nk (dbc370)

  172. um

    first thing is to get the thing out of the box

    happyfeet (831175)

  173. Chuck Bartowski (3e0e89) — 2/15/2015 @ 8:54 pm

    Second and third that motion.
    “Broken Promises” should be required reading. It is a shame it did not get the publicity it deserved.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  174. Lil finches are very happy that polar vortex’s do not reach that far south.
    Very happy, indeed.
    But they talk to tortoises, not turtles, FWIW.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  175. “Even Hindus in India who never heard of it.”

    Gil – Your concern for Hindus going to hell is touching.

    You still cannot seem to get your melon around how there can be multiple religions in the world and how to determine which one in your words is “true.”

    That is a basic intellectual failing on your part not the part of anybody here.

    Good luck with that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  176. It is a shame it did not get the publicity it deserved.

    You and I both know why that happened, doc.

    If a book hit the market that contained shaky and mostly fabricated evidence that Pope John Paul II had fathered two children, it would be heralded as a ground-breaking expose of the excesses of the Vatican. But a factual and well-documented book written by someone in the trenches that showed how liberal policies were actually harming people…well, there are many factions that have a vested interest in keeping such a thing quiet. They couldn’t stop the book from being published, but they certainly wouldn’t tout it.

    BTW, I make an occasional trip to Philly; my wife is buried at a cemetery in Conshohocken.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  177. Gil – Meanwhile, Muslims demand non-believers convert or submit to their mostly peaceful medieval rapey death cult or die even if they have no direct exposure to it. Why don’t you ever talk about that?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  178. i fear a new and fearsome Crusade is nigh

    we said never again

    but some things are just bigger than all of us

    happyfeet (831175)

  179. The sad thing is, Chuck, I couldn’t even get some conservative commentators interested in it. (Not that I have much influence anywhere, but I have had first name correspondence time to time with people who are well established now who once weren’t so much so.)
    Seems there have been too many outright absurd disasters in the making the last many years that it can’t break in.
    And that is still too sad, as it potentially presents a major shift in the narrative, almost like what would happen if Mann wrote a book on how AGW was all oversold from the beginning and offered to split the proceeds with Steyn (well, almost like…).

    If you want to try to meet sometime when you are in town, a number of people have my email and hereby have permission to give it to you (Pat, DRJ, Simon Jester, nk).

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  180. like the Statue of Liberty and the International Space Station and various mountains and such

    happyfeet (831175)

  181. You still cannot seem to get your melon around how there can be multiple religions in the world and how to determine which one in your words is “true.”

    That is a basic intellectual failing on your part not the part of anybody here.

    No Daley it isn’t. I understand there are multiple religions. Point is they can’t all be true. They are mutually exclusive. They can’t all be true but they can all be wrong. If you can’t demonstrate a good reason to believe one and not the other then it is on you not me. Here’s a tip. Try finding a reason that can’t be used to justify the others.

    Regarding Hindus going to he’ll. I’m not concerned because I’ve no reason to think its true. But that doesn’t prevent me from pointing out a Christian world view that does condemn them to hell unjustly. Here’s a thought experiment. Who goes to hell: a Hindu who dedicated his life to helping others or a serial killer who believes In Jesus?

    Regarding Muslims. They are every bit as deluded as you are. I agree that their delusion is far more dangerous. Show me a Muslim poster on this board informing his views based on religion and I will ridicule them.

    Gil (c39449)

  182. If you want to try to meet sometime when you are in town, a number of people have my email and hereby have permission to give it to you (Pat, DRJ, Simon Jester, nk).

    I appreciate the offer, and would be honored to meet with you. The last two times I visited, I stayed at the Radisson in Rittenhouse Square. Very nice hotel, and I liked being in the midst of things in Center City.

    And, likewise, if you are ever planning a trip to Las Vegas, please feel free to look me up. The moderators on this board have my email address, and I give them permission to forward it to you.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  183. 183. …Show me a Muslim poster on this board informing his views based on religion and I will ridicule them.

    Gil (c39449) — 2/16/2015 @ 10:33 am

    Thank you for confirming that your pretenses at good faith dialogue are just that. pretenses. And your ridicule depends upon remaining ignorant of the facts.

    First of all, I read your comment 141. But, no its not your comment its you simply copying and pasting someone elses opinion. I really dont care to argue against someone else by proxy. Now that you have written something on your own (bravo) ill respond.

    Yes, of course. It’s just my opinion that Father Mendel is the “father of genetics.”

    Your anti-religious bigotry depends upon remaining ignorant of the actual history of not just the Catholic Church but the all the major Christian denominations’ support of science. So you can say things like:

    Correct, however it is the Church that has been dragged this way kicking and screaming, far behind by science and modern thinking.

    Really, it’s the other way around. As you demonstrate when you comment.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  184. *Your anti-religious bigotry depends upon remaining ignorant of the actual history of not just the Catholic Church but the all the major Christian denominations’ support of science and higher education.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  185. I really dont care to argue against someone else by proxy.

    That “someone else” is history. Here’s another “proxy” I’m sure you won’t care to argue against.

    http://www.leaderu.com/science/kobe.html

    Donald H. Kobe is professor of physics at the University of North Texas.

    The influence of Christianity in providing an appropriate intellectual ethos for a rational understanding of the universe is at least one reason for the development of modern science in Europe about 500 years ago. According to Alfred North Whitehead, the greatest contribution of the medieval period to the scientific movement was the “belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedent in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles” [1]. The origin of the belief was the medieval insistence on the rationality of God. In this view, every detail of the universe was supervised and ordered by God. The search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality because nature had been created by a rational being. Albert Einstein once said that, to him, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. For the believer in a rational creator, the comprehensibility of nature is a logical consequence…

    But, hey, Gil. In your fact-free world it’s all a matter of opinion. Such as:

    I also find it quite amusing that you hold up Christianity as a beacon of scientific thought. Sure today there are plenty of Christian scientists and good ones.

    When you liberate yourself from knowledge of the facts, Gil, you can say things like, “Sure today there are plenty of Christian scientists. Unhindered by facts, one “opinion” that this is a recent phenomenon is just as good as any other.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  186. Steve57 (6b5a38) — 2/16/2015 @ 11:35 am

    Acording to Max Weber and others, it wasn’t Christianity, it was Protestantism.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  187. Thank you for confirming that your pretenses at good faith dialogue are just that. pretenses. And your ridicule depends upon remaining ignorant of the facts.

    Just because I mock someone’s beliefs does not mean it is in bad faith. Ridicule is a valid tool. Its not nice all the time, . Some people deserve to be mocked including those who think Mohammed literally flew up to heaven on a horse, Jonah lived inside a whale, that water flooded the entire earth, that the earth is 6000 years old, that intelligent design is sound, the list goes on. They believe these things on bad evidence for no good reason. Simplistic reasons Ive heard include personal religious experience, childhood schooling, and unexplained phenomena. Other more complicated but still lacking reasons are arguments from design, from cause and effect (beginning of universe) and various other word games / definitions.

    What is your honest reason to believe? Tell me?

    Yes, of course. It’s just my opinion that Father Mendel is the “father of genetics.”

    Like Ive said before people can hold all kinds of beliefs and still be right about some things. Newton came up with the theory of gravity but he was an alchemist. Because he was right about Gravity should we assume alchemy is sound? So to it is irrelevant whom the father of genetics is.

    The influence of Christianity in providing an appropriate intellectual ethos for a rational understanding of the universe is at least one reason for the development of modern science in Europe about 500 years ago.

    So what? The influence of Christianity is at least one reason the development of modern science in Europe was not as fast as it could have been. You and I have been round the block on Galileo once before, confining him to house arrest is but one example of how advancement was slowed down by Christianity.

    Gil (febf10)

  188. Well, that’s clear. Mocking is part of a good faith discussion when you are discussing something you have a strong disagreement about.
    In theory I can agree with that, though in practice I rarely trust my motives are pure enough to mock in a way consistent with acting in someone’s best interest.
    Though I guess if you think you are doing me a favor by telling me I’m an idiot for believing in Jesus, then you have a logically coherent explanation for acting the way you do.

    In picking up a long running theme, I have decided you are an anti-theist, that if there was a god and he showed up you would be quick to tell him off for being wrong.
    Like Ivan Karamazov in that regard.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  189. 188. …The influence of Christianity is at least one reason the development of modern science in Europe was not as fast as it could have been.

    As opposed to where? Your imagination? Genius, the only place modern science developed was Europe. Because it was Christian.

    It didn’t develop in China. It didn’t develop in Japan. It didn’t develop in India. It didn’t develop in the Islamic world. It certainly didn’t develop in Africa or the Americas. What, Europeans were outpaced by the Greenland Eskimos in terms of technological achievements?

    None of those areas believed in God that was rational and a universe that was ordered.

    So in what alternate Gil-iverse do you come up with this BS that modern science could have developed faster but for Christianity?

    …You and I have been round the block on Galileo once before, confining him to house arrest is but one example of how advancement was slowed down by Christianity.

    Gil (febf10) — 2/16/2015 @ 1:30 pm

    We aren’t going to go around this block any more. I just wanted to expose the fact, again, that you reject facts in order to cling to your uninformed bigotry. From which your silly, juvenile ridicule flows.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  190. 189. …Though I guess if you think you are doing me a favor by telling me I’m an idiot for believing in Jesus, then you have a logically coherent explanation for acting the way you do.

    The ironic thing, doc, is that while Gil mocks religion I’m positive that you are far more a man of science than he is. He thinks there’s a conflict, when in fact science would not have developed without Christianity.

    In picking up a long running theme, I have decided you are an anti-theist, that if there was a god and he showed up you would be quick to tell him off for being wrong.
    Like Ivan Karamazov in that regard.

    MD in Philly (f9371b) — 2/16/2015 @ 1:56 pm

    I was thinking about Ivan Karamazov when I described Gil’s posturing as if he could sit in judgement of an almighty Creator as a teenaged rebellion.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  191. “No Daley it isn’t. I understand there are multiple religions. Point is they can’t all be true.”

    Gil – Prove to me they can’t all be true. I don’t accept your premise.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  192. 192.“No Daley it isn’t. I understand there are multiple religions. Point is they can’t all be true.”

    Why can’t they all be true? Why can’t God in His infinite wisdom lead different people and different cultures to His side by different means? Your inability to believe in anything greater than yourself limits your vision.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  193. Your inability to believe in anything greater than yourself limits your vision.

    Hoagie, you perfectly described the failure of the modern political class.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  194. Pssst…daleyrocks and Hoagie: I’ll bet a buck that Gil will come back with the line from the Gospel, “No one knows the Father but through Me.” He’ll say that proves that Christianity excludes any other religions from finding a path to God.

    What he neglects is the other line, where Jesus said, “My Father and I are one.” So, the path to God is through God.

    Chuck Bartowski (3e0e89)

  195. ==”They can’t all be true”==

    Hey Gil! Check this out!

    The Bahá’í Faith is a monotheistic religion which emphasizes the spiritual unity of all humankind. Three core principles establish a basis for Bahá’í teachings and doctrine: the unity of God, that there is only one God who is the source of all creation; the unity of religion, that all major religions have the same spiritual source and come from the same God; and the unity of humanity, that all humans have been created equal and that diversity of race and culture are seen as worthy of appreciation and acceptance.
    From these postulates stems the belief that God periodically reveals his will through divine messengers, whose purpose is to transform the character of humankind and to develop, within those who respond, moral and spiritual qualities. Religion is thus seen as orderly, unified, and progressive from age to age. According to the Bahá’í Faith’s teachings, the human purpose is to learn to know and to love God through such methods as prayer, reflection and being of service to humanity. In the Bahá’í Faith, religious history is seen to have unfolded through a series of divine messengers, each of whom established a religion that was suited to the needs of the time and to the capacity of the people. These messengers have included Abrahamic figures—Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, as well as Dharmic ones—Krishna, Buddha, and others. For Bahá’ís, the most recent messengers are the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. Humanity is understood to be in a process of collective evolution, and the need of the present time is for the gradual establishment of peace, justice and unity on a global scale.

    No, I am not a Bahá’í. But their temple (which is on the the National Register of Historic Places) and is located on the shore of Lake Michigan is open to all, and its marvelous soaring architectural space is a wonderful place for inspiration, meditation and quiet reflection. Symbols of many religions, such as the Christian cross, the Star of David, and the star and crescent, can be found in each exterior pillar. The pillars are also decorated with a symbol used by Hindus, and Buddhists. The building is surrounded by fountains and flowers.

    I’d much rather look at the world through their lens than yours, Gil.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_House_of_Worship_%28Wilmette,_Illinois%29

    elissa (cf2f1c)

  196. Gil seems to have a concept of an ultimate religion referee, a higher power of some sort perhaps, fixed in his head which he is unable to explain to poor rubes on this blog.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  197. I think its central tenet is adherence to the scientific theory that bonobo monkeys are the blueprint for human behavior.

    nk (dbc370)

  198. My main problem with atheists’ or anti-theists or whatever the current PC nomenclature is that once one eliminates a God who created the universe and set a moral and ethical guideline for man one is left with the second greatest force on earth: government. And when one defaults to government power, raw force, no good comes from it. Also from my experience and observation those who have no faith seem to be quite unhappy and unsatisfied in life. Yet pathetically, have nothing to look forward to in death.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  199. Well, I know of one religion that can not be true.

    http://quran.com/5/116

    Surat Al-Mā’idah 5:116

    And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

    This verse refers to judgement day, the day when Allah will take out his wrath on the Christians for straying from the “upright way” of monotheism into polytheism. This is what whoever wrote the Quran imagines the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to be. Three separate gods consisting of a divine family; Allah the father, Jesus the son, and Mary the mother.

    Anyone familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity care to take a crack at what’s wrong with that picture?

    If this were the eternal, revealed word of a divine being shouldn’t such an omniscient god know what the Christian doctrine of the Trinity consists of? As opposed to something that no Christian or heretical offshoot has taught, ever?

    On the other hand, if the Quran were the work of illiterate or barely literate (this is not an insult; the Arab tribes in Mecca region had just adopted a primitive form of what became the Arabic script just decades earlier, progress was slow, and literacy anywhere was rare) caravan trader/s working from an oral tradition, incorporating stories they had heard into a religion they had decided to come up with, it’s exactly what you’d expect.

    Especially because they were fighting the polytheists of Mecca trying to establish their religion. How else would they interpret the campfire tales they had heard about Christianity?

    This isn’t the only place where the Quran impeaches itself. Here, warning Christians that they’ll pay for the error of their ways on judgement day. And getting everything flat wrong when railing against Christian ways. But it’s not the only place.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  200. * … no Christian sect or heretical offshoot …

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  201. Steve, given the Catholic and Orthodox veneration of Mary, to call her a deity is not erroneous.
    Mohammed can be explained through the Biblical teachings of prophecy, once you remember that prophets can come under the influence of the Other Side (a literal translation of the Kabbalistic term), either intentionally like the prophets of Baal, or unintentionally as recorded at least once in the Book of Kings, where a lying spirit intervenes to mislead a prophet. The latter case is almost certainly true of Mohammed… as witness how often he received a prophecy that matched his wishes…and at least once realized he had been misled, in the incident of the Satanic Verses made famous by Rashdie.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  202. It is true the Koran borrows from the Talmud at least once.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  203. This is what whoever wrote the Quran imagines the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to be. Three separate gods consisting of a divine family; Allah the father, Jesus the son, and Mary the mother.

    The Quran does not refer to Mary as a member of the Holy Trinity. That is definitely not what Muhammad thought it meant. Plenty of Christians pray to Mary. Even many protestants criticize the practice, let alone Jews or Muslims.

    The Holy Spirit is one of the “99 names of God” in Islamic practice and Muhammad was certainly not ignorant of the concept. Islam has basically always been a written and literate tradition, and Christianity was an oral tradition for generations. You should reconsider what you’re saying about the barely illiterate.

    “Of those messengers, some of them We have caused to excel others, and there are some unto whom Allah spake, while some of them He has exalted in degree; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty) and We supported him with the Holy Spirit.”

    — Qur’an, sura 2 (Al-Baqara), ayat 253

    It shouldn’t be a surprise if the holy spirit and God are conflated. Though when I’ve read the Quran I’ve wondered if Muhammed thought of the holy spirit as any angel, or as Gabriel. But for the Trinity idea, there’s really no reason to act like there is a distinction between the Father and the Holy Spirit.

    The problem with Islam is certainly not that it’s ignorant and easily dispelled with by the informed. Quite the contrary, it’s very alluring and conveys a real sense of justice, particularly for poor and disaffected people. The Quran is more conscious of other faiths than the Bible is. But unlike Christianity, Islam is so difficult to ‘reform’ as the text is unchanging. The Bible must be interpreted… it’s been translated so many times from original documents that are based on oral tradition, and there isn’t even a very concrete case for why some books are included and others excluded.

    So the parts of the Bible that sanction horrible horrible evils, such as sexual slavery in Numbers and Leviticus, or executing the holy men of another faith in 2 Kings, are not part of modern Christian doctrine by any stretch of the imagination. We had to interpret the faith anyway, so we ‘pray’ on it and come up with something sensible for our times. And for many people out there, the parts of Islam that sanction those bad things cannot be reinterpreted. Those who do face an uphill battle that I think they must win.

    Steve, it would be trivially easy to show contradictions or errors of fact in the Bible. I say that even though I am very much a faithful Christian. You can’t nerd your way to faith.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  204. at least once realized he had been misled, in the incident of the Satanic Verses made famous by Rashdie.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

    Now that’s probably the most interesting aspect of Islam. Their prophet actually admitted to mistaking Satan’s voice for God’s. And now his most extreme adherents are beheading innocent Christians and burning pilots alive and mutilating their own daughters. It’s surreal.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  205. For instance, the passage in Kings which presumes π=3 exactly.
    The problem with Islam is that the “gates of interpretation” were slammed shut after only a few centuries, allowing tinkering around the edges but no more.
    But even there…Steve provided material to show insulting the Prophet is worthy of death. But nowhere in there is there the idea that making an image of the Prophet is a means of insulting him. In fact, Islamic art has a long tradition of depicting the Prophet, albeit without a face or some other bow to the prohibition against images. The idea that pictures are insults is apparently a modern idea.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  206. 203. Steve, given the Catholic and Orthodox veneration of Mary, to call her a deity is not erroneous.

    Actually it is. Even the Catholics and Orthodox would tell you that she isn’t a deity. Plus, those doctrines venerating her evolved over time. We’re talking the 7th or 8th century when this was incorporated into Quran. Third, the Trinity doctrine has nothing to do with separate deities. Fourth, the Trinity has always consisted of One God in three Persons; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    Calling Mary and Jesus deities in addition to Allah is most definitely erroneous. And represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Allah, if he existed, would know that. I could go back to the Old Testament and show that it talks about the God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son.

    But if you’re trying to say it would be understandable for illiterate or barely literate 7th century caravan traders to confuse Mary with an entirely separate Christian deity (along with Jesus) I agree. But Muhammad was claimed to be the final Abrahamic prophet and he just gets it entirely wrong.

    Mohammed can be explained through the Biblical teachings of prophecy, once you remember that prophets can come under the influence of the Other Side (a literal translation of the Kabbalistic term), either intentionally like the prophets of Baal, or unintentionally as recorded at least once in the Book of Kings, where a lying spirit intervenes to mislead a prophet. The latter case is almost certainly true of Mohammed… as witness how often he received a prophecy that matched his wishes…and at least once realized he had been misled, in the incident of the Satanic Verses made famous by Rashdie.
    kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 2/16/2015 @ 9:08 pm

    It isn’t just Rushdie; something like 40 early Islamic sources confirmed that Muhammad delivered verses praising the pagan daughters of Allah (al-Lat and al-`Uzza and Manat, “whose intercession is to be desired”) because he had very few followers and was desperate to convert his Quraysh tribe to Islam. Such as Ibn Ishaq, his first biographer.

    This verse refers to the incident.

    http://quran.com/22/52

    And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.

    Again, whoever wrote the Quran gets it flat wrong. Any other man claiming to be a prophet who delivered a false prophecy or spoke on behalf of other gods would have been stoned to death. That was the law of Moses.

    Yet Allah would have you believe this happened all the time. It was a good thing Muhammad (if he existed in the form portrayed in the Ahadith; I believe like Obama’s literary girlfriends Muhammad was a composite figure) was playing prophet to people who didn’t know better.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  207. A sobering read: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    If the next POTUS pursues the same path as the current one, exhibits the same dereliction of duty, that POTUS will be impeached.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  208. The Quran does not refer to Mary as a member of the Holy Trinity. That is definitely not what Muhammad thought it meant. Plenty of Christians pray to Mary. Even many protestants criticize the practice, let alone Jews or Muslims.

    No, that’s the only place where the Quran describes the Trinity. And that’s precisely what the Muslim sources believe they are describing; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Which they think is the unforgivable sin of assigning other deities as partners to Allah.

    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=725&Itemid=60#1

    (116. And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): “O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah”’ He will say: “Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the Knower of all that is hidden and unseen.”) (117. “Never did I say to them ought except what You (Allah) did command me to say: `Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them while I dwelled amongst them, but when You took me ﴿up﴾, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a Witness to all things.”) (118. “If You punish them, they are Your servants, and if You forgive them, verily You, only You are the Almighty, the All-Wise.”)

    Isa Rejects Shirk and Affirms Tawhid Print E-mail

    Allah will also speak to His servant and Messenger, `Isa son of Maryam, peace be upon him, saying to him on the Day of Resurrection in the presence of those who worshipped `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah,

    Ibn Kathir was a medieval Islamic scholar and one of the most revered Quranic commentators. Shirq is the unforgivable sin of assigning partners to Allah. And Tawhid is the purported Muslim doctrine of strict unitarian monotheism.

    The Holy Spirit is one of the “99 names of God” in Islamic practice and Muhammad was certainly not ignorant of the concept. Islam has basically always been a written and literate tradition, and Christianity was an oral tradition for generations. You should reconsider what you’re saying about the barely illiterate.

    Why should I reconsider? The Mecca region had no script until they borrowed the musnad script from the Hira mere decades before the Quran was said to have been set down. Essentially the Quran and the writing system arrived at nearly the same time. And not suprisingly, the scribes wrote so poorly as they were just learning it. Moreover the script was very basic. It didn’t even have diacritical marks to distinguish vowels. 22 of the 28 letters were always uncertain. That’s because of the 12 simple consonantal symbols, 9 of them were used to represent those 22 letters. It was impossible to distinguish between the phrase “those who warn” and “those who are warned.”

    When you combine the recent arrival of the script with the inadequacies of the alphabet and add in the bad handwriting due to the poor technique of people attempting to use it then “barely literate” is the only way to describe the situation. When Uthman attempted to decipher the fragments he had gathered together to compile an official version he couldn’t and directed that the “desert men” unscramble the situation “with their tongues.”

    Steve, it would be trivially easy to show contradictions or errors of fact in the Bible. I say that even though I am very much a faithful Christian. You can’t nerd your way to faith.
    Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/16/2015 @ 9:39 pm

    No, it wouldn’t. Because neither the New or Old Testament were written as a polemic against an earlier revelation. And the New Testament doesn’t get the Old Testament completely wrong.

    It’s a simple fact, Dustin. There is no “Holy Trinity” in the Quran. That is the shirq ibn Kathir refers to. The authors of the Quran condemn Christians as polytheists for worshipping Jesus and Mary as deities alongside Allah. That’s as close to the concept of the Trinity that the authors can get. In Islam both Jesus and Mary are mere slaves of Allah, which is the only relationship between a creature and Allah.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  209. re #207: “the passage in Kings which presumes π=3 exactly”

    no it does not. it is really annoying when people just totally dismiss the fact that there the Bible does not solely consist of what was written down. The Oral Law is just as important as The Written Law since The Written can not be understood without The Oral. The Oral and The Written were given at the same time, and The Oral is just as immutable as The Written.

    The purpose of the description of King Shlomo’s Bowl is to show that π is allowed to be approximated, especially in cases where areas are not clearly defined.

    seeRpea (aa8044)

  210. Quranic fun fact. The authors confused Miriam (Maryam in Arabic, or Mary) the sister of Aaron and Moses with Mary the mother of Jesus.

    http://quran.com/19

    Surat Maryam (Mary)

    19:20

    She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?”

    19:21

    He said, “Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.’ ”

    19:22

    So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.

    …19:27

    Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented.

    19:28

    O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”

    19:29

    So she pointed to him. They said, “How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?”

    19:30

    [Jesus] said, “Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.

    If your familiar with the book of Exodus, Amram is the father of Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. Arabized as Imran in the Quran.

    The same Miriam who is the mother of Jesus in the New Testament and the Quran.

    Surat Ali Imran (Family of Imran)

    http://quran.com/3

    3:33

    Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of ‘Imran over the worlds –

    …3:35

    [Mention, O Muhammad], when the wife of ‘Imran said, “My Lord, indeed I have pledged to You what is in my womb, consecrated [for Your service], so accept this from me. Indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing.”

    3:36

    But when she delivered her, she said, “My Lord, I have delivered a female.” And Allah was most knowing of what she delivered, “And the male is not like the female. And I have named her Mary, and I seek refuge for her in You and [for] her descendants from Satan, the expelled [from the mercy of Allah ].”

    3:37

    So her Lord accepted her with good acceptance and caused her to grow in a good manner and put her in the care of Zechariah. Every time Zechariah entered upon her in the prayer chamber, he found with her provision. He said, “O Mary, from where is this [coming] to you?” She said, “It is from Allah . Indeed, Allah provides for whom He wills without account.”

    …3:40

    He said, “My Lord, how will I have a boy when I have reached old age and my wife is barren?” The angel said, “Such is Allah ; He does what He wills.”

    …3:42

    And [mention] when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds.

    …3:44

    That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you, [O Muhammad]. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.

    3:45

    [And mention] when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ].

    If it would be trivially easy for you to find mistakes like this in the Bible, Dustin, have at it.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  211. Oh, Dustin, keep in mind that even if you can find apparent errors in the Bible there is one difference.

    The Bible is both human and divine. It is divinely inspired.

    According to Islamic theology the Quran is the uncreated, eternal word of Allah. The Quran delivered to Muhammad is an exact copy of the “mother of the book” that has existed with Allah for all time.

    It is not divine and human. It is not divinely inspired. It is purely divine. It only contains Allah’s words as dictated via Gabriel to Muhammad. According to Muslims the Quran itself is miraculous.

    So finding a mistake in scripture that is human and divine is a different kettle of fish than finding a mistake in the uncreated, eternal word of Allah.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  212. A little background, Dustin, on the Sunni doctrine of the Quran.

    https://www.abc.se/~m9783/uncrq_e.html

    THE UNCREATEDNESS OF THE DIVINE SPEECH

    THE GLORIOUS QUR’AN

    … Ahl al-Sunna agree one and all that the Qur’an is the pre-existent, pre-eternal, uncreated Speech of Allah Most High on the evidence of the Qur’an, the Sunna, and faith-guided reason.

    In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succint statement of this doctrine:

    “The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah comes from Him, and nothing created comes from Allah Most High.” Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

    Given the fact that Christians and Jews do not make the same claims about their scriptures that Muslims make about theirs, the implications of mistakes are far, far different.

    Also, I have to go back to this one more time.

    The Quran does not refer to Mary as a member of the Holy Trinity. That is definitely not what Muhammad thought it meant.

    1. There is no Holy Trinity as far as Islam is concerned.

    2. As Muhammad (if he indeed existed) is concerned there is only a blasphemous, polytheistic Christian doctrine called the trinity.

    3. Mary is included as part of it; that’s precisely how he understood it.

    http://quran.com/4/171

    O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

    What I wrote earlier is precisely how the early Muslims who wrote/edited the Quran misunderstood the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Which is why Islam is clearly untrue and the Quran can not be the word of the same God of the Old and New Testaments, as Muslims insist. Because the God of the Old and New Testaments would not have gotten things so clearly wrong.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  213. @MD

    In theory I can agree with that, though in practice I rarely trust my motives are pure enough to mock in a way consistent with acting in someone’s best interest.
    Though I guess if you think you are doing me a favor by telling me I’m an idiot for believing in Jesus, then you have a logically coherent explanation for acting the way you do.
    In picking up a long running theme, I have decided you are an anti-theist, that if there was a god and he showed up you would be quick to tell him off for being wrong.

    Thanks MD. Being ridiculed has gotten me to change my opinion in the past. But more importantly when I have seen someone else be ridiculed when he/she held similar beliefs to me I have also changed my mind. I do this for the lurker’s sake! lol :).

    I agree with you about the anti-theist idea. If god showed up, sure Id believe in him at that point. But yeah Id tell him off for sure. cya.

    Gil (27c98f)

  214. @Daley & Hoagie

    Gil – Prove to me they can’t all be true. I don’t accept your premise.

    Too many religions claim conflicting ways to worship. The Judeo Christian God’s first two commandments demand that he is god, and that we are to have no other gods before him. Right off the bat any other religion and this are incompatible. So for one, Hinduism and Christianity cannot both be true. Do you disagree?

    Why can’t they all be true? Why can’t God in His infinite wisdom lead different people and different cultures to His side by different means? Your inability to believe in anything greater than yourself limits your vision.

    Well maybe he could, but this is not what he says. Again I will refer to what Jesus said on the matter in John 14:6 “…no one comes to the father but through me”. Again this is an example of how different religions are mutually exclusive.

    Do either of you think that the religion being practiced by the 9/11 bombers could possibly have been true?

    Gil (27c98f)

  215. no it does not. it is really annoying when people just totally dismiss the fact that there the Bible does not solely consist of what was written down. The Oral Law is just as important as The Written Law since The Written can not be understood without The Oral. The Oral and The Written were given at the same time, and The Oral is just as immutable as The Written.

    Yes without the Oral law we would be missing crucial details about how big a womans breast would have to be in order to be considered a valid reason for divorce without settlement of the marriage contract. Or where and what size a covered up mole would have to be to grant this same exception. Or if she sweated profusely unbeknownst to the unfortunate husband.

    Another detail that is EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT as the written law would be the hypothetical case of a naked man falling off the roof onto a naked woman and implications on her virginity.

    Thanks goodness we have clarity in those cases.

    Gil (27c98f)

  216. @Steve

    As opposed to where? Your imagination? Genius, the only place modern science developed was Europe. Because it was Christian……

    None of those areas believed in God that was rational and a universe that was ordered.

    So in what alternate Gil-iverse do you come up with this BS that modern science could have developed faster but for Christianity?

    Just because two things happen in the same place does not mean one caused the other. Yes the Church did support science in some ways, but it fought science in others. It fought particular subjects because of perceived threats science made on Christianity. For example the debates in the 1800s about evolution slowed down its advancement. Science did not emerge out of a belief in god, but out of human curiosity. This is evident by discoveries, and scientific/philosophic thought all over the world predating Christianity. The greeks approximated the true size of the earth for example!

    Gil (27c98f)

  217. Just because two things happen in the same place does not mean one caused the other…

    Gil (27c98f) — 2/17/2015 @ 1:33 am

    Yes, Gil. In this case it does. It means precisely that. This is why the Islamic world has never produced a single Nobel Prize winner in the sciences. Because Boko Haram. Western learning is forbidden. And Western learning is a product of Christian Europe.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  218. You have no idea what I, or the Physics professor whose article I linked to, mean by modern science, do you? It isn’t ancient Greek philosophy.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  219. 205. …The problem with Islam is certainly not that it’s ignorant and easily dispelled with by the informed. Quite the contrary, it’s very alluring and conveys a real sense of justice, particularly for poor and disaffected people. The Quran is more conscious of other faiths than the Bible is…

    Dustin (2a8be7) — 2/16/2015 @ 9:39 pm

    What contemporary faiths do you find the Bible wasn’t aware of? In any case the difference between whoever wrote the Quran and the Bible is that the Bible actually knows about the other faiths its aware of. Whoever wrote the Quran, while vaguely aware of Judaism and Christianity, knew next to nothing about them. Which is again why they get so much wrong. And the reason that’s important is that the Quran insists it has a relationship with Christian and Jewish scripture that turns out to be quite damning.

    Consequently it is easy to dismiss if you are informed because it the Quran paints itself into logical impossibilities as a result. We’re not talking mere spelling errors. For instance, the Quran claims that the Bible and the Torah predict Muhammad will come as the final “Abrahamic” prophet. By name in some cases. For instance:

    http://quran.com/61/6

    Surat Aş-Şaf (The Ranks) 61:6

    And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.”

    Ahmad is one of Muhammad’s names.

    And by uniquely identifiable characteristics:

    Surat Al-‘A`rāf (The Heights) 7:157

    Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him – it is those who will be the successful.

    Of course, nowhere in the Old or New Testaments will you find any mention of Muhammad. Certainly not by name. And there is no description of any prophet prophesied in the Old or New Testaments that remotely resemble Muhammad in any way.

    I’m going to break this apart here.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  220. It appears that no one who wrote the Quran had ever read the Christian Gospels or the Hebrew Torah themselves. But it also appears that the authors of the Quran were helped by Christian and Jewish converts who had some thin veneer of familiarity with those scriptures.

    In fact, according to the hadith literature on the night Muhammad had his first encounter with the being he later decided was the angel Gabriel Muhammad returned to his first wife Khadija terrified. He was convinced it was a demon, and in fact was suicidal because he feared he was possessed. But her cousin was visiting, who was purportedly a Christian. It was Khadija and her cousin who convinced him he was a prophet who had been visited by an angel.

    Frankly, I don’t know whether these people helped Muhammad (or those men who later formed the composite Muhammad) or played a practical joke. Because the authors of the Quran say with certainty the prior revelations predict the coming of Muhammad. What’s more throughout the Quran it vouches for the divine inspiration, authority, and preservation of the Bible and the Torah that the Christians and the Jews had available to them at that time.

    Surat ‘Āli `Imrān (Family of Imran) 3:3

    He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

    Surat Al-Mā’idah (The Table Spread) 5:47

    And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

    Surat Yūnus (Jonah) 10:94

    So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.

    Surat Al-Kahf (The Cave)

    And recite, [O Muhammad], what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. There is no changer of His words , and never will you find in other than Him a refuge.

    I can provide many more verses if you like. But the Quran never questions the divine inspiration of the Torah and the Gospel. It vouches for the fact that they have been preserved, and that the versions available to the people near him were valid and authoritative (and from the manuscript evidence we know they are the same as we have today). And it even goes so far as to make the Torah and the Bible available to the Christians and the Jews of his day the standard to judge the truth of the Quran.

    And then the Quran goes on to make claims that just can’t be supported, such as the Torah and the Gospels predict Muhammad’s prophethood. And claims that directly conflict with the previous revelations.

    For instance I’ve already pointed out the Quran denies that Jesus is the Son of God (4:171: Allah is father to no one, he is too exalted to have a son; It is shirq to say there is any god but Allah alone. Jesus is just a human servant). In addition to denying Christ’s divinity, it also denies Christ died on the cross for our sins, and it denies his resurrection. And anyone who believes Christ is the divine Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead is damned to Hell (4:171 again; “And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs”).

    Surat An-Nisā’ (The Women) 4:157-158

    And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

    Islam denies and condemns all the key doctrines of Christianity, in other words.

    And what does the New Testament say about a prophet like Muhammad who would deny the key elements of the Gospel (indeed, Christianity itself)?

    1 John 2:22-23

    Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist–denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

    I suggest you read Deuteronomy 13:1-18 for the Old Testament view of Muhammad and his Satanic verses praising the old Meccan false goddesses al-Lat, al-`Uzza and Manat, Allah’s daughters.

    So you can see the conundrum. The Quran says the Gospel and the Torah are the uncorrupted, authoritative, divinely inspired word of God. It commands Christians and Jews, and Muhammad if he has any doubts about the truth of his revelation, to judge by those scriptures. And according to those scriptures we have to reject Muhammad as a false prophet and the anti-Christ, and per the law of Moses that Muhammad is supposed to appeal to the Jews should stone him to death. So now Muslims insist that those books have been corrupted. But that isn’t what their Quran says; the Quran vouches for those scriptures as the uncorrupted, authoritative, divinely inspired word of God.

    And why do they insist the Gospel and the Torah must be corrupted? Because they conflict with the Quran. But hold on! The Quran itself says the standard the truth of the revelations of the Quran must be measured by are the earlier revelations. If A, the Quran is false. If B, the Quran is false. If C, the Quran is false. And if D, the Quran is false. There’s no way around it.

    I don’t see what anyone could find so alluring about it. These are fatal theological errors.

    It seems the authors of the Quran didn’t realize how wrong they had everything until it was too late to change their book. Hence the savage hatred the Islamic fundamentalists have toward Christians and especially Jews we see today

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  221. I don’t know why the authors of the Quran insisted on making these unforced errors. According to the Surah 4:157 the Jews were bragging about killing “the Messiah” the “messenger of Allah.” No Jew who thought Jesus was the Messiah would have bragged about killing him. No Jew who thought Jesus deserved to die would have called him the Messiah.

    The Quran goes on to make this claim:

    http://quran.com/4/160

    Surat An-Nisā’ (The Women) 4:160

    For wrongdoing on the part of the Jews, We made unlawful for them [certain] good foods which had been lawful to them, and for their averting from the way of Allah many [people],

    I’m guessing that after the crucifixition (or fake crucifixition per the Quran) Yahweh never punished the Jews by revising the dietary laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. But according to the Quran and Allah, that’s exactly what happened in the 1st century A.D.

    Dustin, you don’t see any obvious problems with any of this?

    Anybody?

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  222. And there is no description of any prophet prophesied in the Old or New Testaments that remotely resemble Muhammad in any way.

    This is an overstatement on my part. There were some predictions that could have described Muhammad in some superficial and generally irrelevant ways, if you take verses out of context. And if fact Muslims eager to prove that the Quran is right and the Bible does predict the coming of Muhammad will seize on those.

    But if you don’t take certain verses entirely out of context and read on a bit you’ll find the prophesy was already fulfilled centuries earlier. We know who those prophets were. And they weren’t Muhammad.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  223. From Gil (27c98f) — 2/17/2015 @ 12:27 am
    Being ridiculed has gotten me to change my opinion in the past. But more importantly when I have seen someone else be ridiculed when he/she held similar beliefs to me I have also changed my mind. I do this for the lurker’s sake! lol :).

    Well, I would say that ridicule is never a good reason to change an opinion. Ridicule usually does provoke an emotional response which motivates one to reexamine their opinions,
    but opinions should be based on convictions about what is true.

    I agree with you about the anti-theist idea. If god showed up, sure Id believe in him at that point. But yeah Id tell him off for sure. cya.

    Some people have yelled at God and were commended for it (by God), such as Job and Jeremiah. But their yelling was in the context of believing and not understanding.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  224. “Do either of you think that the religion being practiced by the 9/11 bombers could possibly have been true?”

    Gil – This is the part you don’t understand.

    It doesn’t matter whether I think the religion being practiced by the 9/11 bombers could possibly be true, the only thing that matters is what those bombers thought.

    It’s just like those poor Hindus you were concerned about. They don’t give a rat’s patootie what Christians think about them.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  225. 216. Too many religions claim conflicting ways to worship. The Judeo Christian God’s first two commandments demand that he is god, and that we are to have no other gods before him. Right off the bat any other religion and this are incompatible.

    You really are out to prove logic isn’t your strong point, aren’t you?

    What would stop God from inspiring some other religion on some other part of the planet? It would be up to God, not Jews or Christians.

    Do either of you think that the religion being practiced by the 9/11 bombers could possibly have been true?

    Gil (27c98f) — 2/17/2015 @ 12:46 am

    No, it can’t possibly be true. And I’m not making this argument from faith. An atheist can examine Muhammad’s claims, compare his book against the books he claims will validate his revelations, and conclude there’s just no way his revelations are valid.

    In this case he claims to be a prophet in the line of Old Testament Prophets and Jesus Christ. But it wouldn’t have mattered if he claimed to be the next Dalai Lama.

    If he had made that claim, and supported it by saying you’d find him predicted in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, then you read the Book of the Dead and found out not only isn’t he the next Dalai Lama but the Book of the Dead warns of him as a fraud then you’d know not to believe him. And you wouldn’t nave to be a Tibetan Buddhist to know that.

    I know I practically wrote a book earlier myself, but if you go back through them you’ll see there’s no possible way he is who he claims to be. And you don’t have to believe a word of the Torah or the Gospel to know that.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  226. True steve.
    The degree of category error suggests he got his interpretation from the gnostics

    narciso (7ee5f0)

  227. Just an added reason not to believe Muhammad.

    http://quran.com/69

    Surat Al-Ĥāqqah (The Reality) 69:44-46

    And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

    In 629 the Muslims attacked the Jews living at the oasis of Khaibar, about 150 miles from Medina. The Muslims killed many of the Jews, and left the remainder there as tenants. After the battle a Jewish woman offered to cook dinner for Muhammad and his companions. For some strange reason they agreed. She roasted a sheep and poisoned it, since Muhammad and his men had killed her father, her uncle, and her husband. Muhammad’s men could taste the poison, but kept eating because their prophet kept eating, thinking there’s no way Allah would let the prophet eat poison. Finally, claiming divine revelation, Muhammad told the men to stop eating because “it has informed me it’s poisoned.” Two of his men died where they were sitting. It took three years until the poison finally killed Muhammad in 632.

    Here’s the interesting part.

    http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/64

    #4428

    The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

    http://www.sunnah.com/abudawud/41

    #4512

    The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would accept a present, but would not accept alms (sadaqah). And Wahb bin Baqiyyah narrated to us, elsewhere, from Khalid, from Muhammad ibn Amr said on the authority of AbuSalamah, and he did not mention the name of Abu Hurairah: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to accept presents but not alms (sadaqah).

    This version adds: So a Jewess presented him at Khaybar with a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ate of it and the people also ate.

    He then said: Take away your hands (from the food), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’rur al-Ansari died.

    So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done?

    She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I should rid the people of you. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaybar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.

    If you ask a Muslim off the street how Muhammad died, they’ll tell you he just died naturally. He was old, got sick, and died. He just wasn’t that old; only in his early 60s. They have no clue that a Jewish woman poisoned him. Which brings up all sorts of interesting theological angles which we can save for later.

    But the important thing is this; Muhammad came up with a “revelation” in which Allah purportedly told him he’d die a certain way if he was a false prophet. Then, he lingered for a few years in agony complaining of dying in that exact way.

    How this guy’s religion is still a going concern completely escapes me.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  228. We would have seized him by the right hand

    The left hand is the unclean hand; it’s used for cleaning your bottom. The right hand is for eating.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  229. re #230: right hand also used for making contact with other people, like shaking hands or passing the salt.

    and to correct another misstatement: Judaism does not require non Jews to believe in the same G0D as Jews do. It does require non-Jews to be monotheistic and obey the other 7 Noahdic Laws. Agnosticism is not going to get you in hell in and of itself (not quite Plato’s story of the non-believer but close). Judaism does not believe that only Jews get into heaven. Judaism does want other religions to avoid proselytizing Jews and frowns upon proselytizing non-Jews to Judaism. (this last point may be a point of law or a point of practicality, the history of such Jews is not good).

    seeRpea (6c0f9a)

  230. 231. re #230: right hand also used for making contact with other people, like shaking hands or passing the salt.

    seeRpea (6c0f9a) — 2/17/2015 @ 9:28 pm

    Yes, but irrelevant to Muhammad’s prediction (I can’t seriously talk about this as if it were a “revelation”) of how Allah would strike him down if he were a false prophet. Allah would seize him by the right hand and cut from him his aorta.

    The Jewish lady may have poisoned the meat. But Muhammad put it in his mouth, and he would have used his right hand. And as he died he complained of feeling his aorta being cut by the poison.

    There are all sorts of reasons to conclude the Quran can not possibly be true, and here we have one. I don’t believe faith is required; we just have to accept the premise that Muslims make. The Allah of the Quran is the same God as the God of the Old and New Testament. I don’t believe that, but for the sake of argument I’ll accept the premise. One of the basic attributes of that God is that He’s omniscient. So an all-knowing God would know what Muslims believe to be true, even if the omniscient God knows those beliefs to be false.

    God would know Muslims would expect to see Muhammad die a certain way if he were a false prophet (remember the Satanic verses; there’s no way around that, in which Muhammad urged his followers to worship the pagan goddesses al-Lat, al-`Uzza and Manat). The biblical punishment is different, but Islam has no connection to the biblical tradition except campfire stories. No matter, God is omniscient, so He kills Muhammad as he himself said he would die if he were a false prophet. So even though the false prophet’s prophesies are false God knows what they are, at least.

    This is consistent with the premise that God is omniscient.

    On the other hand, in the Quran Allah is angry at the Christians for supposedly worshiping Mary and Jesus as false gods. This is a perversion of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Even if the doctrine of the Trinity were false an omniscient God would at least know what that doctrine was. But the Quran gets it (and many other things about the New and Old Testament) hopelessly and fatally wrong. An all-knowing God would know what the Jews and Christians are filling their books with even if they were lies, but Allah has no clue.

    This is not consistent with the premise that God is omniscient.

    The better proof though, is simply checking to see if the Quran can meet its own test of validity. Numerous times the Quran says the Torah and the Gospel are the inspired, preserved, and authoritative word of God. And tells people (Jews, Christians, and Muhammad himself) the way to check the truth of the Quran is to verify it against those texts it had vouched for.

    All this requires is accepting the logical premise that a thing can not be both A and the opposite of A at the same time. It requires no religious faith, so it would work if the Quran had said the same things about the Tibetan Book of the Dead or for that matter a Robert Ludlum spy novel.

    After confirming some other text/s as the control (i.e. the inspired, preserved, authoritative word of God) if what its claiming to be true, the Quran proceeds to make various claims. It posits A, B, C, D, etc., to be true. Then when one subjects the Quran to its own test it fails miserably. The control text/s, which the Quran chose for itself, say the opposite of A, B, C, D, etc.

    This puts Muslims in a bind. To get around it they reverse the test. They say Robert Ludlum got it all wrong because The Bourne Supremacy conflicts with the Quran. But in order to fabricate a test the Quran can pass, Muslims have to go against their own Quran to do it. Which means in order to prove the Quran is true, you have to begin from the premise the Quran is false.

    It just implodes at that point.

    Steve57 (6b5a38)

  231. 233. I’m thinking you know your Quran better than i know my Bible.

    When i get my books back i’ve work to do, but none on the Law, which leads to death not Life.

    DNF (aa00f1)

  232. So the Pakistanis and Iranians with their nukes and ICBMs are apostates? Or just wishful thinkers and we have nothing to worry about because Islam will keep them from ever building a nuke and a flat Earth theory will keep them from hitting anything with their missiles?

    Unless, of course, Jinns are real and the ones they have bound will provide both the telemetry and destructive force.

    nk (dbc370)

  233. Let me put it this way, nk.

    Surat Al-Mā’idah (The Table Spread) 5:101 – 102

    O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur’an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.

    Shut up, the Quran explained. Don’t ask questions, or you’ll go to Hell like those other people.

    Seriously, this is how Islam handles the cognitive dissonance its contradictions creates. It tells Muslims to stop thinking about it.

    I keep harping on the fact that no scientist from the Islamic world has ever won a Nobel Prize for science (two nominally Muslim scientists [depending how broadly you’re willing to define Muslim], a physicist and a chemist, won prizes but they had to do their work outside the Islamic world). But I never said that there are no Muslim scientists.

    There’s no way the theoretical work behind nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles could ever have been done in the Islamic world. On the other hand there’s no way they’ll let the filthy kuffar get too far ahead in weapons technology.

    Fortunately the religion doesn’t have to make sense. Islam doesn’t mean persuasion. It means submission.

    So, again, shut up, the Quran explained. Stop thinking, slave. Thinking isn’t for you. Just submission.

    Steve57 (e16ed8)

  234. 203. Now derive Mary’s diety from the only authority common to Xian denominations. We’ll wait.

    204. Way to stick thy neck out, Ginzberg.

    DNF (aa00f1)

  235. Prayers to Mary are for intercession. That’s doctrine. Christ is a well-brought up Jewish boy — He listens to His Mother.

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.1017 secs.