Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
And oh yeah, she did admit a few years ago that she would kill her own child if God told her to! It took a while to get the admission, but she did admit it!! And just the other day she said that, in her opinion, it would be morally OK to execute adulterers! (She had a friend who’s husband cheated on her after 14 years and ruined the marriage)
Also, you won’t find a bigger demonizer of democrats and liberals, but get this… she’s in her early 40s, has been in a wheelchair her whole life (but she can get around on crutches), hasn’t had a job in 11 years (she used to work full time, but now does spotty part time gigs), and she DEPENDS ON GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR A LIVING!! Can you say “hypocrite”?? So when she gave her opinion of adulterers, I pointed out that she should have no objection then if we rounded up Newt Gingrich and executed him. She then went into backpedal mode and became noncommittal on the issue. When I pressed and asked point blank if it’s OK to execute Newt on moral grounds, she went silent. What a despicable person this is. It’s a good thing that she’ll probably never pass on her genes.
YECs can be a nightmare to deal wth. I’m currently involved in a heated thread with a woman who is a YEC in another forum and I’m finding it’s quite an effort to keep up. Not because the YECs arguments have any merit of course, but because we have to play by the rules (be logical and consistent) and they… well, they can twist the facts (or invent some) to suit their needs. Here is an example of the sophistry they employ. This is a direct copy and paste (in bold) from that other forum:
Sorry I didn’t respond in a timely manner for you, but I have other things going on in my life besides hanging out here discussing important issues. Let me respond to a few points you made:
In your first message, you said the supposed general age of 14 billion years is not in dispute by astronomers. Well, the following would disagree with you:
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. in physics.
Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D. in astrophysics.
Dr. Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. in astronomy.
Dr. John Hartnett, Ph.D. in physics.
Dr. Ron Samec, Ph.D. in physics.
Dr, Walt Brown, Ph.D. in physics.
There are others. But all dispute the prevailing scientific opinion and have logical theories as to how the universe can be only a few thousand years old (from our perspective). Dr. Humphreys, for example, discusses the gravitational time dialation theory, which is fully consistent with Einsten’s relativity because we know that gravity affects the flow of time. There’s too little space to go into that here, but you can read it for yourself:
The laws of thermodynamics totally agree with the idea that the universe had a beginning. #1: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So where did all the STUFF come from? #2: The total amount of available energy is decreasing. So it cannot have been here forever.
Did you know that we know how fast the earth is losing energy? The earth is like a hot coal taken out of a fire and placed on the ground. Eventually that coal will go stone cold to the center. Well, space is very cold. At current heat-loss rates, 1027 calories per second, this planet would go stone cold to the center in only 40 million years. How, then, can scientists claim that this planet has been here for 4.5 billion years?
BTW, it’s still very hot down inside the earth, so that tells me that it can’t have even been here for 20 million years.
Did you know that the continents are eroding away? Based on current known erosion rates, the continents of the earth would be worn flat to sea level in only 50 million years? How, then, can scientists claim that dinosaur fossils are 200 million years old?
Stick around, baby, I’ve got more.
Evolutionary scientists need an old earth and an old universe to make their wild theory plausible. Time becomes the magic element. If it could be scientifically determined that the earth and universe cannot be that old (and it can), their theory completely crumbles. Bringing God into the equation is no less scientific than bringing huge amounts of time into it. Neither are scientifically verifiable, but one is more logical than the other. Good science goes where the data leads, not where the heart wants to go because it doesn’t want to be accountable to the Creator.
Note the smugness and condescencion of her post. By the way, after painstakingly addressing each of her points, she followed up with more links to creation sites, more sophistry, and more smugness. Oh, and for what it’s worth, this particular woman is also a huge Rush Limbaugh fan. Double the ignorance.
It’s hard not to truly dislike these people.
Ron
That sounds like a really interesting discussion, Ron. Could you link the forum? Is that allowed?
Well, of course, some might be stupid. But others just have the blinders on for this topic of discussion.
Not exactly the same, but really similar: I know an opthalmalogist who is a very good doctor, but believes the majority of the Bible is literally true. If pressed, he’d agree that the Genesis creation story is an allegory. But was Goliath over 9 feet tall?—yes! Did Daniel’s friends survive the fiery furnace?—yes! The man is in no way stupid. But he is “incapable” of pushing too far on doubting the Bible because he fears the slippery slope in his own mind, and where it might take him.
It’s the logic that says, “Either the whole Bible is literally true, or we can’t trust any of it.” I’ve never really understood the need for this un-nuanced point of view.
Many believers take this position. It comes from “the Bible is the infallible Word of God.” It requires people to accept some unfounded positions. There is a sort of bibliolatry going on there, with the Bible itself becoming the focus of worship/attention - an idol.
YECs can be a nightmare to deal wth. I’m currently involved in a heated thread with a woman who is a YEC in another forum and I’m finding it’s quite an effort to keep up. Not because the YECs arguments have any merit of course, but because we have to play by the rules (be logical and consistent) and they… well, they can twist the facts (or invent some) to suit their needs. Here is an example of the sophistry they employ. This is a direct copy and paste (in bold) from that other forum:
Sorry I didn’t respond in a timely manner for you, but I have other things going on in my life besides hanging out here discussing important issues. Let me respond to a few points you made:
In your first message, you said the supposed general age of 14 billion years is not in dispute by astronomers. Well, the following would disagree with you:
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. in physics.
Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D. in astrophysics.
Dr. Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. in astronomy.
Dr. John Hartnett, Ph.D. in physics.
Dr. Ron Samec, Ph.D. in physics.
Dr, Walt Brown, Ph.D. in physics.
There are others. But all dispute the prevailing scientific opinion and have logical theories as to how the universe can be only a few thousand years old (from our perspective). Dr. Humphreys, for example, discusses the gravitational time dialation theory, which is fully consistent with Einsten’s relativity because we know that gravity affects the flow of time. There’s too little space to go into that here, but you can read it for yourself:
The laws of thermodynamics totally agree with the idea that the universe had a beginning. #1: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So where did all the STUFF come from? #2: The total amount of available energy is decreasing. So it cannot have been here forever.
Did you know that we know how fast the earth is losing energy? The earth is like a hot coal taken out of a fire and placed on the ground. Eventually that coal will go stone cold to the center. Well, space is very cold. At current heat-loss rates, 1027 calories per second, this planet would go stone cold to the center in only 40 million years. How, then, can scientists claim that this planet has been here for 4.5 billion years?
BTW, it’s still very hot down inside the earth, so that tells me that it can’t have even been here for 20 million years.
Did you know that the continents are eroding away? Based on current known erosion rates, the continents of the earth would be worn flat to sea level in only 50 million years? How, then, can scientists claim that dinosaur fossils are 200 million years old?
Stick around, baby, I’ve got more.
Evolutionary scientists need an old earth and an old universe to make their wild theory plausible. Time becomes the magic element. If it could be scientifically determined that the earth and universe cannot be that old (and it can), their theory completely crumbles. Bringing God into the equation is no less scientific than bringing huge amounts of time into it. Neither are scientifically verifiable, but one is more logical than the other. Good science goes where the data leads, not where the heart wants to go because it doesn’t want to be accountable to the Creator.
Note the smugness and condescencion of her post. By the way, after painstakingly addressing each of her points, she followed up with more links to creation sites, more sophistry, and more smugness. Oh, and for what it’s worth, this particular woman is also a huge Rush Limbaugh fan. Double the ignorance.
It’s hard not to truly dislike these people.
Ron
That sounds like a really interesting discussion, Ron. Could you link the forum? Is that allowed?
It’s actually on The Magic Cafe (I have a lifelong interest in magic). Go to the “Not Very Magical, Still…” section and find the “Big Bang Theory” thread. Here is the link:
It’s free, and if you just want to browse without registering you can. Some of those “Not Very Magical, Still…” threads are quite interesting and spirited (there’s currently a long running thread on gun control in light of the recent shootings). The moderators don’t want the threads getting too political or religious, but sometimes they get a little out of hand and quite heated before getting shutdown. These days I spend about 90% of my time in that one section on the forum. It’s really a fun place and there’s some accomplished and well-known magicians/mentalists who participate there (well-known certainly to magic afficionados, but also perhaps to others). I actually get more political and religious discussions on that site than I do here, due to the fact that there are so many more participants and it’s a very active site.
It’s the logic that says, “Either the whole Bible is literally true, or we can’t trust any of it.” I’ve never really understood the need for this un-nuanced point of view.
Many believers take this position. It comes from “the Bible is the infallible Word of God.” It requires people to accept some unfounded positions. There is a sort of bibliolatry going on there, with the Bible itself becoming the focus of worship/attention - an idol.
Paradoxically perhaps, this viewpoint is an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation. Previously, the Catholic Church had been the sole source of Biblical instruction and interpretation. The reformed idea was that people could read the Bible and learn from it themselves, with conscience as a guide. However, later this grew into the idea that Biblical events must be taken literally, so as to avoid spurious interpretations.
It’s the logic that says, “Either the whole Bible is literally true, or we can’t trust any of it.” I’ve never really understood the need for this un-nuanced point of view.
Many believers take this position. It comes from “the Bible is the infallible Word of God.” It requires people to accept some unfounded positions. There is a sort of bibliolatry going on there, with the Bible itself becoming the focus of worship/attention - an idol.
Paradoxically perhaps, this viewpoint is an outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation. Previously, the Catholic Church had been the sole source of Biblical instruction and interpretation. The reformed idea was that people could read the Bible and learn from it themselves, with conscience as a guide. However, later this grew into the idea that Biblical events must be taken literally, so as to avoid spurious interpretations.
As to hannahs point, this is what so bizarre about the modern literalist movement. Interpreting the Bible literally is relatively speaking a modern phenomenon that starts in the reformation period. The great church fathers of early Christianity—Origen, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc.—all advocated a figurative interpretation of the text, especially Genesis 1-11 AND they held it to be god’s word—god speaks in parables was the underlying hermeneutic justification. Modern literalist actually stand against the very tradition that they claim to be a part of—- silly people.
At one time there was a station that I could watch ‘Cornerstone TV’ that ran a series called ‘Origins’ that tried to Ues Science to ‘Prove the truth of the Bible’. I used to tune in just to laugh at their silly attempts.
Sort of like the carpet dealers in Tehran who would take new carpets and lay them out in the streets where traffic could run over them for a while to give them an aged look.
Sort of like the carpet dealers in Tehran who would take new carpets and lay them out in the streets where traffic could run over them for a while to give them an aged look.
A few days ago My daughter walked in with a new pair of Jeans that had wear patterns on them and they came like that new. One of the things I really don’t like is distressed furniture, but you have a hard time getting away from it.
Sort of like the carpet dealers in Tehran who would take new carpets and lay them out in the streets where traffic could run over them for a while to give them an aged look.
A few days ago My daughter walked in with a new pair of Jeans that had wear patterns on them and they came like that new. One of the things I really don’t like is distressed furniture, but you have a hard time getting away from it.
So is Jefe saying that God distressed the Universe when he created it?
“There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.”
Bertrand Russell, 1921
