International I Hate Sports Club

I believe there are scientific reasons for questioning the theory of evolution. This is a debate that probably will never end. Since I believe that there is an all-powerful God, I have no difficulty believing in the possibility of miracles (although a study of New Testament scriptures will show that miracles were to cease). When you pick an object off the floor, you overcome the effect of the law of gravity. Since He is an all-powerful being, I have no difficulty visualizing God working miracles against the natural laws that He put into place. But, unlike some religious people, I don't believe that miracles have taken place since New Testament times.

Although my beliefs may strike a lot of people as "narrow-minded," I do not think I'm better than everyone else; and I certainly don't favor squelching anyone's freedom of speech. A number of my friends have been nonbelievers, whose friendships I've appreciated over the years. One of my friends was even gay. (He eventually died of AIDS.) We were friends before there was even a Gay Lib movement. I did not agree with his lifestyle; but I still thought very highly of him because he was a kind, decent guy who respected me and never got fresh with me. Since I'm a Christian, a lot of people today would not understand my attitude towards gays.

i_like_1981 wrote:

Lewis wrote:

Safety wrote:Are all of you guys atheists?...

I'm an Agnostic (brought up CofE). I'm not really sure about God existance, but if He does exist I imagine He would be a bit disapointed with the world.

I'm the same. There's convincing arguments for and against God's existence. Yes, science does explain a lot of the reason regarding why we are here today, with its explanations on evolution and the formation of the Earth, but such things as the working eye are so intricately designed that they can't just have come about by chance. Was there some sort of a creator? The lack of definite answers to the big questions allows the realm of belief to exist in this world. If all was clear and explainable, we'd either not have religion at all or one universal religion which everybody followed.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

I believe that what you're talking about is known as irreducible complexity which has now been thoroughly debunked.

That's because, even a complex organ like the human eye could have evolved naturally.

For example:

There are small microorganisms with a light sensitive cell so they can tell light from dark. They can't see images, but they can tell light from dark.

Then there are some small organisms that have developed a small patch or cluster of light sensitive cells, and the patch is slightly concave, giving them directionality, another words, these organisms, while still unable to see images, they are able to tell which direction light is coming from.

In some of these organisms I have just mentioned above, the concave patch of light sensitive cells is more deeply curved almost spherical with a small hole. Now this acts almost like a pin-hole camera, and now they are able to distinguish light and dark shapes, almost like seeing images but not quit, they can only distinguish shapes, light or dark, but not color.

Then comes the final shape where a lens has developed which can more sharply focus light, and now you have the eye which can see images. And in later stages, the light sensitive patch becomes a more developed retina that can distinguish color.

So, the eye did evolve in different stages from just a simple light sensitive cell to a patch of light sensitive cells, then a concave patch of light sensitive cells, and a more deeply curved patch with an opening on one side acting like a pin-hole camera, and so on.

Thus, puts so-call irreducible complexity to rest.

And some species of animals have eyes that are superior to the human eye!

We humans are actually a joke!

If it weren't for our complex brains we would have been extinct a long time ago.

Many species of animals are stronger, faster, have better balance, more graceful in movement, and can hear better, and see much better than humans.

We humans are pathetic!

So, we must rely heavily on our brains in order to survive.

Oh! And chimps have better short term memories than humans.

Chimp Vs Human - Memory Test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC1nJ61l-h4

The next two videos show that chimps even have a much better built in BULLSHIT detector than us humans.

Chimpanzee vs. Human child learning (1/2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAoJsS9Ix8&NR=1

Chimpanzee vs. Human child learning (2/2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHuagL7x5Wc&NR=1

Here a human child and a chimp are presented with a box to open to get a piece of candy. You have to tap on the top of the box with a stick, move two cylinders aside, insert the stick in an opening on top, and tap inside, then open the little door in front to get your reward.

First, the human child and a chimp are presented with a black box, and both the human child and the chimp repeat the "necessary" steps of obtain the reward.

Then the human child and a chimp are presented with a transparent version of the same box.

The human child still repeats the same ritualistic steps to obtain the reward.

But the chimp, upon seeing the transparent version of the box sees right away that the first three steps are irrelevant and cuts to the chase, opening the little door in front and takes the candy.

That's because the chimps now sees that all the previous steps were actually unnecessary, that it was all BULLSHIT and goes straight to the little door in front.

All of these tests show that chimps have better short term memories than us humans, and a much better built in BULLSHIT detector than us humans, and better at critical thinking.

This explains why we humans can be easily deceived and indoctrinated to believe in ritualistic and magical thinking. Yeah, like, this transparent box is a magical box, you have to tap on it with a stick to open it. Chimps can see that it's bullshit and they cut to the chase.

Chimps are too smart to be indoctrinated!

Oh, and chimps are much stronger than us pathetically soft and weak humans.

A 150 pound chimp has about 5 times the strength that 200 pound male human has.

A chimp can easily kill a human being.

Chimps can kick our asses!

And they have better critical thinking skills and can easily see through bullshit!

Earl wrote:I believe there are scientific reasons for questioning the theory of evolution. This is a debate that probably will never end.

Well, let's see.

The proponents of what is now called "Intelligent Design" or ID, (a new designation for creationism) they all claim to have scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution, but none of their articles have been subject to peer review in the scientific community.

The Discovery Institute wants to cut to the chase, and bypass peer review and have tried to go directly to the courts to have "Intelligent Design" taught in high school science class.

When asked to submit proof of their hypothesis, they backed out at the last minute.

In the scientific community less than one percent question evolution. There are actually four times as many historians who deny the holocaust as there are people in the scientific community who question evolution.

Now there was one proponent of Intelligent Design who came very close to having a paper submitted to peer review in the scientific community. But he refused to disclose any sources or the names of fellow "scientists" who are also proponents of Intelligent Design.

So, he copped out. In peer review, you have to state any sources, you have to show experimental data, then tests have to be repeatable, and also, be able to make predictions.

For example:

Many transitional forms have been found based on predictions. You have two different fossils and you theorize that there should be a transitional form between the two.

You go to the areas where the fossils were found, and while searching the rock layers between where the younger and the older fossils were found, you find a fossil in between that is proven to be a transition between the other two fossils.

This is how the majority of discoveries made by paleontologists now occur.

It is no longer a process of finding things by accident as it once was a century ago. Yes, accidental findings may still occur, but now, most of the time, paleontologists know where to look for a suspected transitional form between previously discovered fossils.

So, it's a theory that works because it can make predictions that can be tested.

A theory is not just a "hunch" with a college degree.

To those who argue that evolution is only just a theory, well they're right, it's a theory, just as Newton's law of gravity is a theory, just as in physics we have atomic theory.

In art classes I studied color theory, and my brother who played the trumpet in a the high school band studied music theory.

Theories are based on facts.

First you come up with a hypothesis. Then you conduct some tests or take measurements and collect data or whatever it takes. Then you submit your data to peer review. The tests must be repeatable by other scientists, and if the facts support your hypothesis you now have a working theory.

In science we also have 10 Commandments.

The scientific method in 10 easy commandments.

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF SCIENCE

I ) When explaining what thou seest, and thou makest an explanation for this phenomena, thou shalt makest predictions based on this explanation.

II) Thou shalt see if thy predictions are true with a repeatable test. Thou must repeat it a couple of times, just to be sure.

III) If thy predictions are wrong, so is thine explanation. Tryeth a new one.

IV) If thy findest an explanation that works, publish that sum'bitch so others may test thy explanation for themselves.

V) If someone finds a problem with thine explanation, thou must accounteth for that problem, demonstrateth through test that the problem doesn't really exist, or findeth another explanation.

VI) When doing thy tests, thou shalt not fabricate data.

VII) Thou shalt not claim someone else's explanation as thine own. That's fuckin' weak!

VIII) If someone else giveth you an explanation, testeth it.

IX) If thy thinkest there is a problem with an explanation, do not remain silent about it.

X) Until an explanation is found for something thou seest, don't make shit up! If thou hast no explanation, thou knowest not.

I got this from a YouTube video on evolution. The producer of the video put it in the old style English like you would see in the King James Bible just to be humorous. But it still rings true.

Evolution has pretty much been proven beyond any doubts. In fact, the theory of evolution is even better supported than the theory of gravity.

Newton's theory of gravity explains how gravity works, but dose not explain what gravity is. Einstein's general theory of relativity explains better what cause gravity, that it's the warping and bending of space around massive objects, and not merely an attractive force as postulated by Newton.

The so-called "scientists" who dispute evolution, well, Kent Hovind is currently serving 10 years in prison for tax fraud which has nothing to do with his stance on creationism. So, he's not being persecuted for his beliefs, but only serving time for tax fraud.

The Discovery Institute is in deep shit for filing false DMCA claims against the YouTube users who had produced educational videos on science and evolution.

They have yet to come up with any reasonable hypothesis or theory for how evolution might be wrong, and have instead resorted to other dishonest and fraudulent tactics.

Nobody today (except a small minority of whack-jobs) doubt's the the earth is round, or that the earth and all the planets revolve around the sun, and in the scientific community evolution is accepted by ALL the paleontologists and biologists and geologists.

Those few scientists who are known to have some objects toward evolution are in other unrelated fields, such as electronics or some other field that has nothing to do with biology or paleontology.

There are no more scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution than there are for questioning that the earth is round.

Again, I like to go back to DNA, because DNA testing has been used to settle many legal disputes in a court of law. DNA can show who's the father of a child in custody or divorce settlements. DNA evidence can show if one is innocent or guilty of a violent crime.

I subscribe to Newsletters from The Innocence Project, an organization that investigates claims of innocence being made by people serving time in prison for crimes such as rape or murders they didn't commit. In many of these cases, they have been in prison for 20 years having been sentenced back before DNA testing, because the technology did not exist yet. The evidence used in their court trials is often still being held in storage, so now, they get a legal subpoena to re-examine the evidence and run DNA test on any blood or semen samples, and if there is no match, then that proves the person wrongly convicted is innocent after all, and the DNA can be use to identify the person who actually committed the crime. It's even better than fingerprints!

As a result, a lot of convictions have been overturned and the actual perpetrator is then put on trial.

But unfortunately, the DNA testing cost money, and that's where The Innocence Project come in. They have been able to get at the truth, but more still need to be done, because there are still people serving time or on death row for crimes they didn't commit, and people who have committed crimes who are still running around lose.

DNA testing is the very best thing that has ever come along. It's the most reliable way to collect evidence.

And as I have said before, DNA testing has be used to settle legal disputes in divorce cases when there is any question as to who is the father of a child.

And the DNA genome sequence proves that humans and chimps have a common ancestry.

It amounts to legal evidence of it in any court of law.

NEXT CASE!

Fat Man wrote:Many species of animals are stronger, faster, have better balance, more graceful in movement, and can hear better, and see much better than humans.

We humans are pathetic!

So, we must rely heavily on our brains in order to survive.

Indeed. I'd like to see a jock with no academic interests dropped in the middle of the jungle nowhere near civilization. Because while he may by physically superior to most nonathletic people causing him to be socially successful in civilization, he is nowhere near as physically advanced as the organisms in that environment, and he'd have to rely heavily on his brain, however he wouldn't be mentally capable of handling the environment with his brain like a smart person would, so he'd be screwed.

Also, I enjoyed that video of the chimpanzee counting and remembering the numbers. I was quite surprised at their ability to count in a human numerical system, nevertheless their ability to quickly memorize the placement of them! I'd like to know the backstory of this experiment before the results were taking, such as how much, if any, training they were given to count in a human numerical system.

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote:

Fat Man wrote:Many species of animals are stronger, faster, have better balance, more graceful in movement, and can hear better, and see much better than humans.

We humans are pathetic!

So, we must rely heavily on our brains in order to survive.

Indeed. I'd like to see a jock with no academic interests dropped in the middle of the jungle nowhere near civilization. Because while he may by physically superior to most nonathletic people causing him to be socially successful in civilization, he is nowhere near as physically advanced as the organisms in that environment, and he'd have to rely heavily on his brain, however he wouldn't be mentally capable of handling the environment with his brain like a smart person would, so he'd be screwed.

Also, I enjoyed that video of the chimpanzee counting and remembering the numbers. I was quite surprised at their ability to count in a human numerical system, nevertheless their ability to quickly memorize the placement of them! I'd like to know the backstory of this experiment before the results were taking, such as how much, if any, training they were given to count in a human numerical system.

Well, it could have just as easily been letters instead of numbers, or some other kind of symbols arranged in a sequence, but it just happened to be 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 in a sequence, and any chimp can memorize the sequence. Little children are taught how to count using numbers in a sequence long before they are taught how to add or subtract. It's just a simple sequence that's easy to remember.

These videos were made back in 2008, and I have seen similar videos made back in 2006, so I think it's been pretty well confirmed.

There was a chimp named Lana back in the 1980s who learned to communicate in ASL, American Sign Language, which is use by the hearing impaired. When she was given a slice of watermelon for the first time, she made the hand sign "drink fruit" so she was able to make up new names for things she never seen before. She was one very smart chimp. She even had a sense of humor, sometimes playing practical jokes on her trainer, and then making the hand sign for "funny" and she was also taught to press a sequence of symbols on a large keyboard, each symbol representing a word, and when she was taught a new word, and new symbol was added to her keyboard. She had memorized over 1,500 symbols which was the extent of her vocabulary, so when she requested anything, she would press a sequence of symbols asking for what she desired, and using proper grammar.

WOW! I don't think I can memorize over 1,500 symbols!

But then, I don't have to. I only need to remember 52 different symbols, AaBbCcDdEeFfGgHhIiJjKkLlMmNnOoPpQqRrSsTtUuVvWwXxYyZz, and put them together to make thousands of different words, and then remember punctuation symbols,.?'";:! and numbers 0123456789, and then +-/x= for math functions, and then symbols used in algebra formulas so I probably know over 200 different symbols, but not 1,500 different symbols.

The DNA sequence uses an "alphabet" of only 4 letters, A, C, G, and T, which are the designations for the 4 amino acids that come in a long sequence to make up DNA. These 4 "letters" carry instructions on how to make a human being or a chimp, or a cat or a dog or a microbe, or a tree, or a flower, or anything that's alive.

And we carry a lot of "junk" DNA, for example, our genes still carry instructions for growing a tail, but those instructions are canceled out by later genetic instructions, thus, humans don't grow tails, but the instructions for growing a tail is still there, and sometimes, on rare occasions, a human child is born with a short tail. It happens sometime, when an old piece of information is reactivated.

Bird still carry genetic information for growing teeth, but that information is canceled out in modern birds, so we don't see birds with teeth even though they still carry the genetic information for growing teeth. This is because birds are descendant of dinosaurs. In fact, birds are now actually classified as modern dinosaurs. So, when you go to KFC for a bucket of chicken, or you bake a turkey in your oven for Thanksgiving, you're eating a dinosaur!

Lions, tigers, leopards, and panthers are cats.

And we humans are primates, and we are still apes!

I'm fully aware that a lot of religious people are offended by that, but the truth is, we are animals, and we are apes, a species of ape that calls itself Human, but we are still apes nonetheless.

Even if we are endowed with an immortal soul (which can not be proved or even disproved by science) we are still apes.

Now, if that's the case, then we are half animal and half spirit, but the "spirit part" is outside of the scope of science, because science can only deal with the natural physical world.

So, even the scientists will say it's OK to believe, or not believe there is a God, or believe, or not believe in an immortal soul. Science must forever remain neutral on that, thus, creationism is rejected, because there is no physical evidence to back it up.

If all life forms are miraculously created according to their kind, then why do we humans still carry the genetic information for growing a tail, and why do birds still carry genetic information for growing teeth?

And these are only two examples. There is a lot more I haven't covered.

And the Genesis Flood, with the story of Noah's Ark is only a myth, a legend.

There is not enough water on this planet to flood the entire earth.

Also, when paleontologist examine the layers of rock underground we find human fossils in the upper most recent layers, and as we go down deeper and deeper, we eventually find a layer with dinosaur fossils and as we go deeper we find simpler animals. They have never found human fossils in the same rock layer with dinosaur fossils. It simply does not happen.

So, the fossil record in the geological rock layers show simpler animals in the lower layers, and more complex animals in the higher layers, and so on and so on and so on.

There is absolutely no geological evidence of a world wide flood having occurred 4000 years ago as stated in Genesis about Noah's flood.

And in response to a question asked earlier . . . . .

Safety wrote:Are all of you guys atheists?...

No, I'm not an atheist. I just don't interpret everything in the Bible so litterally.

I have been studying Judaism, and going for Torah Studies on Shabbot, Saturday mornings at a Reform Synagogue. Even my Rabbi supports Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and even he says that creationism should not be inserted into any school science curriculum. During our Torah studies, we critically analyze the passages in the Torah, and what it means in the light of today's knowledge.

And no . . . . . we don't believe that all the verses were dictated by God while men were taking down dictation and writing as God literally spoke. It doesn't work that way. The creation story was written by primitives who had no knowledge of science.

Back in February 12, 2009, that was the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, and incidentally, when I joined the Sports Sucks forum. Anyway . . . on the following Saturday after February 12,2009 during our Torah studies and during our religious services, we actually honored the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin.

So, supporting Darwin's theory of evolution does not make one an atheist.

Actually, I'm more of a Deist, sort of like Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin.

I believe in a secular government that recognizes the right of all religions to exist while promoting no religion over another, the separation of church and state.

In order to have freedom OF religion, we must also allow freedom FROM religion.

President Papa Bush once said . . . . .

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
George Papa Bush - August 27, 1987 - while campaigning for President.

And I'm quite sure that President Baby Bush felt the same way about atheists.

This is dangerous, because atheists also have a right to be considered citizens and patriots.

The Constitution supports the rights of ALL religious people and ALL non-religious people, including atheists, all should be equally considered citizens without having their patriotism being questioned.

But if some of these fundamentalist whack-jobs have their way, only Christians would be considered citizens and patriots.

Now, that really scares the holy bee-jeebers outta me!!!

Given your opinionated views, I wonder why you even like me.

Earl wrote:Given your opinionated views, I wonder why you even like me.

OK, I realize that NOT ALL fundamentalists force their religious views on other people, and even you have said that people should have a right to study evolution even though you don't believe in it yourself.

So, that's why I like you, because you're more tolerant.

It's only the extremists, like Pat Robertson, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, etc. etc. that I refer to as fundamentalist whack-jobs.

It's because, if they had their way, they would change our laws.

I say, people are free to believe anything they like, as long as they don't impose their beliefs on other people.

If anyone wants to tell me about what they believe, I'll listen, but I'll also ask questions.

But if anybody condemns me because I don't believe as they do, or try to force their beliefs on me, then I won't want to listen anymore. I'll call them on their bullshit and I will call them whack-jobs.

Especially the ones who want to have our laws changed to only accommodate them while taking away the civil liberties of the rest of us.

Later on tonigh, I'm going to post another topic with a nine video series on The Jesus Camp.

The lady who runs this camp for children, well, she is one psycho bitch.

I even had nightmares after watching these videos.

Fat Man wrote:
The next two videos show that chimps even have a much better built in BULLSHIT detector than us humans.

Chimpanzee vs. Human child learning (1/2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAoJsS9Ix8&NR=1

Chimpanzee vs. Human child learning (2/2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHuagL7x5Wc&NR=1

Here a human child and a chimp are presented with a box to open to get a piece of candy. You have to tap on the top of the box with a stick, move two cylinders aside, insert the stick in an opening on top, and tap inside, then open the little door in front to get your reward.

First, the human child and a chimp are presented with a black box, and both the human child and the chimp repeat the "necessary" steps of obtain the reward.

Then the human child and a chimp are presented with a transparent version of the same box.

The human child still repeats the same ritualistic steps to obtain the reward.

But the chimp, upon seeing the transparent version of the box sees right away that the first three steps are irrelevant and cuts to the chase, opening the little door in front and takes the candy.

I remember seeing this experiment. It's a shocking result, but I think you left out a key part of these tests actually proved.

While chimps "cut to the chase" it doesn't really give them any capacity to learn new skills. Chimps have a great ancestral memory, but they really suck at coming up with anything new. It takes them decades to come up with a slightly better tool. Neanderthals are thought to have the same problems. Modern humans have lost ancestral memory for a brain that can constantly invent solutions. That's why we've advanced so much in the past thousand years.

Human children mimic because that's how they learn. Granted, it can lead to brainwashing at an early age, but remember the experiment featured human CHILDREN and chimpanzee ADULTS. So the whole experiment may be bunk, anyway.

This reminds of somebody doing a experiment of monkeys where they gave 'money' which was interchangeable with food. The end result was the first instances of prostitution outside humans. (One male monkey gave one 'money' to a female, had intercourse that lasted for 3 seconds, and then went on its way. This was then followed by a common sighting of similar prostitution)
(It was used to prove that the basic principles of economics hold even outside humans)

The Imperialist wrote:This reminds of somebody doing a experiment of monkeys where they gave 'money' which was interchangeable with food. The end result was the first instances of prostitution outside humans. (One male monkey gave one 'money' to a female, had intercourse that lasted for 3 seconds, and then went on its way. This was then followed by a common sighting of similar prostitution)
(It was used to prove that the basic principles of economics hold even outside humans)

Yes, I heard about such experiments.

Those chimps acted in many disgusting ways just like us humans!

We may have evolved from apes sharing a common ancestry with chimps, but we humans are pigs!!!

One will argue that prostitution is a necessary evil, because there will always be a demand for such services (and the fact that it is one of the oldest 'professions')
As long as prostitution is regulated very strictly (like what the Imperial Japanese Army did), then I have no qualms.
But it is quite disgusting, because people do not know how to control themselves. Tut tut.

The Imperialist wrote:This reminds of somebody doing a experiment of monkeys where they gave 'money' which was interchangeable with food. The end result was the first instances of prostitution outside humans. (One male monkey gave one 'money' to a female, had intercourse that lasted for 3 seconds, and then went on its way. This was then followed by a common sighting of similar prostitution)
(It was used to prove that the basic principles of economics hold even outside humans)

Well chimpanzees in the wild have have no problem trading food for sex or vice-versa, though the reward(sex) isn't always immediate. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... t-sex.html

Earl wrote:I believe there are scientific reasons for questioning the theory of evolution. This is a debate that probably will never end. Since I believe that there is an all-powerful God, I have no difficulty believing in the possibility of miracles (although a study of New Testament scriptures will show that miracles were to cease).....But, unlike some religious people, I don't believe that miracles have taken place since New Testament times.

Earl I'd like to see a link to this study if possible, despite my utter disbelief in miracles I'm interested why people who believe in miracles would think miracles for some reason ended not soon after Jesus' death. Did Jesus or his followers have some monopoly on miracles or something? What about everywhere else? Why can't holy men from places besides the middle east perform miracles before and after the new testament? One can't forget that the earliest accounts about Jesus' life and miracles were written decades after his death and most likely most if not all of the original 12 disciples were dead by then. Given that even 30 was pretty old back then and assuming the 12 were around his age so there's bound to be exaggeration. Actually I think all Muslims would disagree with you since Muhammad their prophet performed at least two-was visited by an angel and at the end of his life ascending to heaven.

To Earl

Are you still mad at me?

Please note:

I wasn't saying this about ALL Christians. I'm referring to the extremists.

OK, when I go to all the YouTube channels on Science, Evolution, Astronomy, I notice that ALL of the educational channels on science are open to comments where anybody can express their opinions.

But when I go to YouTube channels by Christians who are also Creationists, I notice that on most of these channels, posting comments on videos has been disabled, and comments posted on their channel pages are pending approval.

That's because on science channels they believe in freedom of speech while Creationist channels do not!

Now some might argue that because I'm against teaching creationism in a science class that I'm against freedom of speech because . . . Oh! We must teach both sides of the controversy and let the students decide! Right?

WRONG!

No! That would be like teaching Astrology in an Astronomy class, or the flat Earth in a geology class. We don't teach pseudo-science in a science class.

Only the scientific facts should be taught, in a science class. In this case, it's not a matter of choice.

If people want to chose to believe in creationism, then they have no business in a science class.

Oh! Today while riding home on the bus I noticed a guy reading a book. When ever I see somebody reading a book I always like to inquire on what they're reading and what it's about. He was reading up on the Korean War.

I enjoy seeing people reading books out in public, because one can strike up and intelligent conversation.

Well, we got on the subject of politics, and I asked him what he thought about what has been going on with the Texas State Board of Education, and he thought it was an outrage that they would remove Thomas Jefferson from the history textbooks, and he also mentioned that he was pissed off about the attempts to insert creationism into the science curriculum.

I noticed that he was wear a neck-chain with a 3 inch cross on it, and I asked him if he was a Christian.

He said yes, that he is, and even though he's a Christian, he supports the teaching of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in school science classes, and is against any attempts to insert creationism into the science text books.

We also had a great time cracking jokes about the story of Noah's Ark and the flood. He dose not buy into the story of Noah's Ark and believes it to be a myth.

And he is a Christian!!!

We both agreed that many of the stories in the Bible are myths, or legends. He just happened to be a strong believer in the teachings of Christ.

Now, getting back to the YouTube channels by creationists.

As I have said, on most of those channels, posting comments on the videos has been disabled and even voting either thumbs up or thumbs down has also been disabled.

OK, that's fine!

If you have your own channel, you are free to set up any option you choose!

On my channel, I allow people to post comments on my videos and to either up-thumb or down-thumb a video. Those are the options I chose when I had set up my channel.

If people want to disable comments or voting on their own channels, then that's their own business. You're free to run your own channel as you see fit.

But what I object to is that many of these creationist come to the educational channels on evolution to read the comments that people have posted, and they down-thumb all the positive comments made by other viewers and up-thumb all the negative comments in order to bring down the ratings of a channel that they don't like.

On any given channel, there may be hundreds of comments posted, so, to read all the comments, and down-thumb the ones you don't like, that involves many long hours of mindless clickie-work.

Then they like to flag science videos on evolution as inappropriate for minors, thus further reducing the number of viewers, and then, and a final death blow to a channel, the file false DMCA claims toget a channel shut down.

Of course, now the word is out on YouTube that if you file a false DMCA claim, you do so under the penalty of perjury which can get you up to 5 years.

As I have said, if the creationists choose to disable comment posting or voting on their own channels, that's their own business, but to attack other channels that they don't like because they're about evolution in an attempt to shut them down, that is an act of cowardice.

People should be free to believe in any religious doctrine they choose, but that does not give them a right to shut people down who don't believe in the same.

Rest assured, I'm not mad at anyone. I and my wife just returned home from a long drive escorting our daughter back to the university way on the other side of the state for her second year. We didn't fly because she was driving her car back to the campus. As I type this, it's 10:30 at night; and I obviously won't have time to post tomorrow. Starting Monday, I'll catch up with everyone's posts. Sorry for the delay.