Evolutionists say, "No Fair" | Creation Today

Our Websites

Evolutionists say, “No Fair”

Scientific Critique Not Fair

The House of Representatives in the state of Tennessee has voted 70 to 23 for a bill that would allow students the freedom to scientifically critique modern scientifically held theories. Quoting from the Channel 9 website article, “Scientists opposing the proposal are concerned it will unfairly target evolution…” Now the bill must be passed by the Senate Education Committee before it goes any further. I have two thoughts on the subject.

Evolution Can’t Withstand a Challenge

  1. Can evolution not handle the fight, fair or unfair?  Evolutionary scientists keep telling the masses that there is lots of evidence for evolution, but yet they don’t think it would be fair for students to give it a scientific critique!  Something smells fishy here. Sounds to me like they enjoy the upper hand of indoctrination and would be delivered a blow if students actually got an education.
  2. Students already have the right to critique the theory! Come on students,: You should know that you are the one with the power in the classroom. Teachers may not be allowed to discuss some things, but as soon as a student brings it up, the debate is on! Now you have opened Pandora’s box and allowed teachers to share their opinions, even if they do not agree with the curriculum.  I have met many Christian science teachers that can’t wait for students to bring up the subject and question evolution so that they can share what they believe and the science that backs it up.

So students, you have the right to question that stupid theory and you should.  Don’t settle for indoctrination, get an education, and that means asking questions. Don’t be afraid to do it!

Recommended Reading

,

130 Responses to Evolutionists say, “No Fair”

  1. andrew Ryan April 20, 2011 at 9:07 am #

    Richard Dawkins already answered this well:

    Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors.

    That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.

    Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.”

  2. Geno Castagnoli April 20, 2011 at 9:53 am #

    Eric quotes:
    “Scientists opposing the proposal are concerned it will unfairly target evolution”

    ####
    Geno points out:
    Gee… you don’t think the fact evolution is specifically named as a subject that can cause “controversy” would support that concern, do you? With around 99% of scientists in the relevant disciplines accepting evolution, how much SCIENTIFIC controversy is there? How much of our limited class time do you think we should spend on ideas that are held by only a fringe group of scientists?

    Eric says:
    1.Can evolution not handle the fight, fair or unfair?

    ####
    Geno answers:
    Sure we can. I’ll be delighted to engage you in a written debate of the scientific issues that cause me to reject YEC any time, Eric…. bring it on.

    The thing is you will avoid a written debate like the plague. Real scientific discussions aren’t held in timed verbal debates, Eric. Those debates are often won by sound bite rather than substance. (Recall Reagan v. Carter when Reagan commented: “there you go again…”) Real scientific debates are conducted in writing complete with things like equations and mathematics that are, quite simply, not well suited to the timed verbal format.

    Eric claims:
    Something smells fishy here.

    #####
    Geno answers:
    Yes, it does.

    Isn’t the proper way to gain entry to FIRST convince the scientists THEN put your ideas in the text books? How many of those legislators do you think have the scientific expertise to actually judge the merits of a scientific theory?

    Eric points out:
    2.Students already have the right to critique the theory!

    #####
    Geno replies:
    Yes, they do. So, what does this law provide that isn’t already allowed? In the words of the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, this law “…does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution….”

  3. Jack Napper April 20, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    Can evolution not handle the fight, fair or unfair?

    It already has numerous times. When looking at the science Evolutionary Theory stood the test of time. Biblical Creationism and Intelligent Design didn’t.

    Evolutionary scientists keep telling the masses that there is lots of evidence for evolution, but yet they don’t think it would be fair for students to give it a scientific critique!

    Freshmen high school students are no better equipped to offer a critique of evolutionary theory than you are. The person of a classroom is to instruct student within a particular not to win the hearts and minds in a political and theological arena. Why is this limited only to fields theists apparently don’t like? Why need to bill when ALL science should be looked at with some skepticism?

    Something smells fishy here.

    Yeah wonder what it could be.

    Sounds to me like they enjoy the upper hand of indoctrination and would be delivered a blow if students actually got an education.

    Must really suck knowing that upper hand was gained because of evidence rather than ignorance. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it and shown your limiting understanding and misrepresentation is another.

    Students already have the right to critique the theory!

    Yeah the do. However, as I mentioned before a teacher is there to teach. They are not there to waste time while a student spews out whatever they believe to be true with little understanding what they are arguing against or even drudging in disciplines like cosmology into a biology class.

    Teachers may not be allowed to discuss some things, but as soon as a student brings it up, the debate is on!

    Not usually. Most teachers inform students of the very topics I have already mentioned. Most “debates” involve nothing more than a student parroting gibberish or saying something REALLY REALLY REALLY stupid (YouTube: w1Prm_vQQcM).

    Now you have opened Pandora’s box and allowed teachers to share their opinions, even if they do not agree with the curriculum. I have met many Christian science teachers that can’t wait for students to bring up the subject and question evolution so that they can share what they believe…

    No actually the science teacher isn’t allowed to share their beliefs in the public school science class. These are secular institutions. I know of at least one high school not too far from here that has a large percentage of students who are not Christian. They had two teachers fired a couple years ago. One spouting there biblical beliefs in the classroom and the other for proclaiming the Holocaust never happened.

    …and the science that backs it up.

    Well then perhaps we should be talking to these science teachers because you certainly haven’t presented anything that could be debunked or easily refuted in under five minutes.

    So students, you have the right to question that stupid theory and you should.

    Grow up.

    Don’t settle for indoctrination, get an education, and that means asking questions. Don’t be afraid to do it!

    Finally something we can agree on.

  4. Joshua Powell April 20, 2011 at 9:57 am #

    Andrew, your argument fails at the KEY point, in that it is an example of LACK of evidence. If the student is willing to present evidence that there is no such thing as the Roman Empire, than let him, and move on. It is a horrible analogy for the evolution debate because it is evolution that has no evidence. In fact, the indoctrination of evolution is just an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make me weep if I wasn’t too busy fighting it.

    In summary, evolution is a gross perversion of science if it does not accept scientific challenge. It becomes, by the very definition of the word, a religion.

  5. Andy April 20, 2011 at 11:03 am #

    andrew Ryan
    Your (Dawkins) argument does not work for 2 reason.
    First, there is significant evidence that the Romans exist, but where is it for evo? Darwin said that if MILLIONS of transitional fossils were not found in the next hundred years, then the theory should be abandoned, and yet here we are today with a few skimpy bones.
    Second; If Dawkins is so tired of fighting creationist, then why does he keep fighting? Why doesn’t he (and you) just ignore us, do your research, and let the evidence lead you. Yet Dawkins has made it his life goal to ‘take care’ of Bible believing Christians. Why? Why not “devot your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher”? All we do is write blogs and make videos. How are we hindering you? Or are you scared someone will see evolution for what it is and, therefore, cut off all opposition?

  6. Stephen Holshouser April 20, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    Andrew,

    Unfortunately, instead of science teachers and textbooks discussing only what we can observe, test, and demonstrate, they venture into the realm of the unscientific evolutionary religion. Classrooms have more than enough to learn without addressing creation or evolution at all. However, if the evolutionists start the fight and try to preach their theory as fact, it is only right that they should be questioned.

    The problem with Dawkins’ little analogy is that it doesn’t properly describe the situation. It would be more accurate to say the Roman history teacher was trying to force the students to believe that the Romans came from a rock thru natural processes over billions of years, instead of simply teaching about Roman literature and culture! Just stick to the facts and leave your religion at home if you don’t want to waste time arguing about it!

  7. Caleb Fielding April 20, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    Andrew

    Imagine if you will if you are a martial arts instructor and someone says a side kick doesnt work. As the instuructor with many years of experience you should have no problem demonstrating that since in many ways martial arts is a science.

    Imagine if you will that you are a science teacher teaching and someone says that levers are not a simple machine. As a science teacher you should have no problem demonstrating that.

    Imagine that you are a biology teacher and someone says you do not need air to breath you should have no problem demonstrating that.

    Imagine that you are teaching evolution and someone says demonstrate it. You will say wait ten thousand years.

    which one is not like the other?

  8. David Ray April 20, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    I strongly suggest that CSE close comments on this thread and just leave Andrew Ryan’s first post up and visible. Any other comments, especially those trying to dismiss or diminish Dawkins’ words, will just result in embarrassment for the author.

    • CSE April 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

      Yeah, because Dawkins is infallible… (We hope you picked up on the sarcasm.)

  9. Walton Stone April 20, 2011 at 1:15 pm #

    Jack,

    –Can evolution not handle the fight, fair or unfair?

    It already has numerous times. When looking at the science Evolutionary Theory stood the test of time. Biblical Creationism and Intelligent Design didn’t. —

    If Evolutionary Theory has stood the test of time why is it still a THEORY?

  10. Floppy McChung April 20, 2011 at 1:17 pm #

    Dawkins’ argument is nothing short of a straw man. He’s the king of them, why can’t we indulge one more?

    • CSE April 20, 2011 at 1:20 pm #

      Floppy, please use a real name next time, or your comments will no longer be approved.

  11. Danny April 20, 2011 at 2:17 pm #

    Even though I did not find John’s answer to my post I found this by Duane.

    Duane
    April 18th at 4:00 pm
    @Joanna Gadzinski
    Duane,
    What is your spiritual disposition?
    What, are you going to preach to me? Save it. I find your religion repugnant, immoral and infantile. You are not going to find the verse that convinces me otherwise.
    Statement of Faith
    The Scriptures
    We believe that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout, in that holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the very words of Scripture. It is without error (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself, and that Scripture is our final authority. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture.
    Read that. It pretty much invalidates ANY and ALL “Science” presented on this blog by CSE. It shows a bias that is insurmountable. This shows that protecting your delusion is more important than facts.
    Did you ever consider that all of this might even possibly be wrong? “Son of God” in the Old Testament was an honorific meaning “righteous person”. When Christianity was taken over by Gentiles, they had an existing tradition of demi-gods such as Hercules and Perseus. When they heard about this Jesus person claiming to be the Son of God, then they had a pre-disposition to take it literally. Your whole religion is based upon a cultural misunderstanding. Did you know the Trinity is a concept that’s not even in the Bible, but was created later? “Oh, but it’s implied.” The whole foundation of your religion is “implied”? This is simply a 1st Century Mystery Blood cult that was forced upon Europe by the Roman Empire and reinforced at sword point in the Middle Ages.
    It’s 2011. Time to shed ancient superstitions and join us in the real world. We don’t have all the answers yet, but we’re getting there.

    @Duane,
    It is 2011 and it is time that you shed your world view since it is totally wrong. GO to my website and watch a few videos I deal with the triune nature of God a lot.
    I haven’t seen any of the “answers” that you have in regards to macro evolution and plenty in regards to micro evolution which is biblical. Your view of Christianity is totally off. Many things are “implied” in the Old Testament and opened up in the New Testamnent. There is an old saying that goes like this, “The new testamnent is in the old testament concealed, the old testament is in the new testament revealed”. Mnay things in the old testament are brought to light in the new testament. There are all kind of types sand figures in the old testament brought to light in the new. A few examples for your reading pleasure.
    Genesis 1:26,27 says,
    “26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
    V. 26 has God saying, “Let us…” BUT in the very next verse it says, “God created man in HIS own image,” (Caps mine to show clearer what I am saying) God went from plural to singualar to show he is plural just he is singular. He is a united one and satan has been mimicing that from day one, so to speak.
    I will give you one more, don’t want this post to get too long.
    “6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
    7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
    8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.”
    I see the LORD is talking and then he says, “…let us go down, and there confound their language,…” Then it verse 8 it says, “So the LORD scattered them abroad…” So did they do it or did he do it?
    There are more illustations on my page. Check it out.
    I would hope that you really studied evolution in reality. It is totally wrong in many, many ways. Tons of evolutionists are leaving it since it is a religous system that doesn’t hold water, or should I say truth. As I have said before there are about 10,000 scientists who do NOT believe in evolution, there are at least 700 more who have come out from under the bondage of Darwinism. They saw it was holding them back from really learnig science since myth and science shouldn’t mix.
    In closing you said, “I find your religion repugnant, immoral and infantile.” I say the same thing regarding evolution, that religion has been used more to justify killing unborn babies to old people in the name of progress, survival of the fittest. The weak, the infirm, the sickly should just go to the wayside. Evolution has no room for them, they are parasites, so to speak. It is one sick, perverted religion.
    Duane, don’t shut down God/Jesus because of what man has taught you since most of your comments are wrong. Roman Catholicism claims to be Christian and it came out of Rome but it is just another sick, pagan religion that have killed millions in the name of Jesus but that is the wrong Jesus.
    In closing, here is a quote from one evolutionist and there are many, many more who are with him.
    “One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”
    Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA), ‘A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogensis by information theory’. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67, 1977, . 396.

    Ekkman

  12. Danny April 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    I never heard from Corey or John on this post…

    Corey
    April 14th at 8:12 am
    @Danny,
    On your question of Ph.D, it depends on what the Ph .D. is For instance, a person with a doctor in theology does not make him/her an expert on evolution and someone with a doctor in biology does not make an expert of theology. You would not want an electrician doing your plumbing and vice versa.
    Also, I would like to know if the Ph. D. was legit. Many of us have Kent Hovind’s and I asked him on his blog about his dissertation. He gave his standard “non-accredited” argument and avoided my questions.

    Based on what you said above. I have these few comments to answer you, MY post you answered said this within it, “Speaking of that, Who would you say knows the most, a Ph.D creationist or a Ph.D evolutionist?”
    I would think that my question was clear enough. If I just mentioned a Ph.D evolutionist, would you just automatically think he was a scientist? Just wondering.
    There are scientists in both of the above religious worldviews. Scientists take things for granted just as anyone else. They have their biases too. In context, you should have seen very clearly that I was speaking of scientists based on what you read that I said. I didn’t even hint at those with degrees in areas of electricity or plumbing. That statement by you was way out there based on my words to you in the first place. Speaking of theology, that is the only degree that Darwin had. So surely you would not trust him in the scientific field, would you? I am asking that based on your comment above. There are hundreds coming out from under Darwinism who have Ph.D’s like the other evolutionists that they were at one time. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
    There are educated guesses that over 10,000 scientists do not believe in macro evolution.
    Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
    Do any scientists with Ph.D. degrees reject the theory of evolution? Yes, they do!

    So please answer my question this time so I can answer it too after I get your answer. Or was the above your answer? If they both had legit degrees in the correct area such as biology then you would trust both of them? Even if they totally contradicted each other? Correct assumption or not? You let me know by the above statements of yours that it was based on having the correct degree in the correct field. I await your reply.

    Ekkman

  13. David Ray April 20, 2011 at 1:40 pm #

    @CSE,

    …. and the embarrassment begins. Where did I say that Dawkins was infallible? I didn’t. That’s what you claim – access to an infallible text (despite the fact that the available evidence demonstrates its fallibility).

    If you’re going to post, please address Dawkins’ words instead of making false and unsupported claims about my intent.

    • CSE April 20, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

      Mr. Ray,
      You said that anyone who attempted to go against what Dawkins said would just get embarrassed – like as if Dawkins’ words are not refutable, or are inerrant or something. That’s why we posted.

  14. andrew Ryan April 20, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    No Joshua, it is a perfect analogy for the very reason that there IS so much evidence. You are exactly like the Latin-denying students in Dawkins’ analogy, showing how apt it is. Ignorance of the evidence does not help your argument.

  15. andrew Ryan April 20, 2011 at 1:52 pm #

    “Imagine that you are teaching evolution and someone says demonstrate it. You will say wait ten thousand years.”

    No, you’ll just go through the curriculum, which does the job just fine.

    Walton: “If Evolutionary Theory has stood the test of time why is it still a THEORY?”

    What, like number theory and the theory of relativity? CSE, why not have the scientific definition of ‘theory” posted permanently at the top of each page to prevent creationists endlessly embarrassing themselves by repeating Walton’s question, followed by other people wasting space endlessly explaining to them where they’re going wrong?

  16. Danny April 20, 2011 at 3:02 pm #

    Here is a little food for thought from the “quote” miner. Forgive me John.
    “The evolutionary establishment fears creation science
    because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence.
    In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were
    arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists.
    The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today,
    few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould,
    and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all
    declined to debate.”—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard
    (1999), p. 241.
    “It was because Darwinian theory broke man’s link with God
    and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its
    impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution
    in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men
    viewed themselves and their place in the universe.
    *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67
    [Australian molecular biologist].
    “Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations
    are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify
    as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe
    dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. *Norman
    Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
    “No one has ever found an organism that is known not to
    have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on
    behalf of evolution. *Tom Bothell, “Agnostic Evolutionists,”
    Harper’s, February 1985, p. 61.
    “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must
    have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the
    crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of
    being, as we see them, well-defined species?” *Charles Darwin
    (1866), quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, p. 139.
    “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of
    an act of creation.” *Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom:
    Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19 [a leading astronomer].
    “Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost
    all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend
    their observations to fit in with it.” *H. Lipson, “A Physicist
    Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

    Enough for now!

    Ekkman

  17. Danny April 20, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    @John, I couldn’t find it so I will paste it again here for you to answer.

    John BebbingtonApril 13th at 3:23 pm
    Danny wrote:
    Did you watch “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed”? You would know better where I am coming from.
    (John answered back with)
    You are a very easy man to con, Danny. The film was dishonest trash from start to finish and if you can’t see that then I cannot help you.
    @John, I surely like hearing from you. You are just about the only person that I know that sounds like he is really saying something important or true but you look between the lines and there isn’t any substance there. You said that the film was dishonest. It was the best documentary film for that year so there are a lot of people very easy to “con”. BUT they did not fool John Bebbington, he is too smart to be fooled by truth since it blows his religious worldview to pieces and they just hit the icing on the cake, so to speak. I KNOW all those evolutionists lied in the movie, case closed! Evolutionists HAVE lied time and time again in the past and are still doing it and many have been shown to you but you just sweep them under the rug. NOW it looks nice in here???” There are too many to mention BUT they have been brought to your attention many times but you seem to forget them. Whether we are talking about the bones from monkey to man, the moths, the embryos, horse evolution has been shot down, the drawings of a complete monkey man with his family included and they did that wonderful artwork from just a pig’s tooth. Those evolutionists are incredible but I think the artists are even more incredible. It is magic at its’ best.
    (Danny said in a previous post)
    ?I also noticed that you said in the above paragraph that Jesus would be ashamed of Christians for quote mining. Just as in the physical there could be riches in gold mining, there is riches in quote mining. Just show us where the evolutionists lied. I don’t believe that you are concerned whether Jesus cared about quote mining or not since you speak as if it is a sin.
    (John answered back with)
    “According to your religion bearing false witness is a sin.”
    @John, And according to your religion, “evolution” bearing false witness is not a sin, correct?”
    (Danny said in a previous post)
    It probably is to you since you can’t answer the quotes except by getting off the issues and bringing up a different one hoping the issue dealt with will be forgotten. It won’t happen with me. I quoted it accurately and in context. Show me the problems or the untruth, get you focus off the people and deal with the issues.
    (John answered back with)
    Danny, you don’t even understand your own quotations. Matthews opens the paragraph by stating “The fact of evolution…”. Evolution is a fact. What he then went on to discuss was the mechanism which causes it (the theory) to happen. It is the exact nature of the mechanism which is under discussion. But there is no point discussing it with you because you don’t believe that evolution has occurred – you believe that the fact of evolution is false. And yet, unfortunately for your lack of understanding, it is evolution which is likely to kill you.
    John, I will be playing with words here a little. You are probably right that “evolution” will kill me, it has been the reason to justify murder, killing all over the world for years and years and years. If I am just a higher animal then it should not be a big deal if they experiment on me as they would a worm or frog or rat or any other animal. Hitler, Mussolini, and a ton of other evolutionists have used evolution as a means to kill the unfit, the feeble as has Margaret Sanger, the founder or Planned Parenthood. John, a question, what would you think if they wanted to use me and other Christians as guinea pigs? Be honest with me, would it be a big deal to you? Just curious,”
    (John said in a previous post)
    Gene transfer between bacteria of different species has been observed and it is this mechanism which is causing increasingly rapid growth in antibiotic resistance. Note that phrase: gene transfer between bacteria of different species, i.e. evolution.
    Still, God is much better than antibiotics at curing bacterial infections, isn’t he?
    Yes John, God is far, far better. Did you read my reply to Corey? I base my life on my God, he has brought me through time and time again and I do not believe that he is going to let me down as I go to him in faith. I was preaching tonight and one of my favorites nonsense religions came into my topic, that being evolution. I go into a few reasons why evolution is nonsense and why there are NO atheists, they don’t exist. I also brought up Corey in my teaching sharing why I told him that I would rather die trusting in God than die trusting in doctors. I was sharing how based on statistics that approx 120,000 people die from using legal drugs and around 90,000 die from improper care in hospitals and the like. I am saying that is the yearly average. I was also preaching on how silly it is for evolutionists to go up to a Christian and tell him that there is no God, I go on to tell them that God is my Father, my life. For someone to tell me that God doesn’t exist would be like me walking up to a so-called atheist and telling him that his parents don’t exist. My statement would be as stupid as his would be to me. I KNOW God, fellowship with him, he leads me, heals me, helps me, loves me. I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for him.
    Dying would not be terrible to me. I just go to a higher and better life. NO matter how good my life is here, it will be better there.

    (Danny said in a previous post)
    ?I asked you about the online book and you once again decided it wasn’t worth reading because it was written by a 7 Day Adventist.
    (John answered back with)
    No, I didn’t reject his book because of his religious views but because of his nonsensical “science.”
    @John, Here it is again, your “matter of fact” attitude. You know it all or maybe most of the all. You don’t want to appear perfect yet, I don’t guess. You hardly ever deal with the issues, you just make one liners that are usually cuts or one lines like you have been doing with me in this post and your last one. You supply no proof for you statements but they are correct, you said them so they must be.
    (Danny said in a previous post)
    ?You said that you didn’t like his nothingness comment condensing into a single tiny dot and decided to explode. I showed you again using David Darling that evolutionists believe it Since you talked like he was speaking total nonsense in regards to what evolutionists believe then you tell me.
    (John answered back with)
    Danny, it is you who believes that something came from nothing. If the total net energy of the universe is zero, as cosmologists now suspect is the case, what was created?
    John, you figure out your problem. I already know how it all came into being, by an all knowing, all powerful God who spoke it into existence AND by the way, God is not a “nothing”. YOU are the one who believes that everything came from nothing and if something was here, where did it come from??? I don’t understand why in the natural that you can’t see it. You speak it like ever so many evolutionists have in many articles that I have read by them over the years, “we think, it probably happened, it might have been like this, we think, we are fairly sure. NOW you are telling me what cosmologists “suspect”. Most of the things they thought, believed, figured, guessed have been wrong so this will just be another notch on their belt, so to speak.
    (Danny said in a previous post)
    I am all ears. Tell me what you think of the big bang and where life came from, etc. AND if you do NOT know then don’t be jumping down creationists’ throats because they want you to know.
    How often do I have to repeat that I don’t know? But neither do you. The difference between us is that I know I don’t know but you mistakenly think you do. There is a lot of empirical evidence as well as rational explanations to suggest various mechanisms for both the “creation” of the universe and the start of life processes but are any correct? I’ve no idea.
    @John, WOW, you actually said that you don’t know. This should go down in the history books, “There is something that John DOESN’T know. WOW!
    (John answered back with)
    But I do know for various reasons that no human being ever saw a live stegosaur.
    Well, in closing the old John we have grown to know and love on CSE blogs is back NOW you KNOW that NO human being ever saw a live stegosaur. HOW do you KNOW that John? Even if someone gave you absolute proof that they lived side by side you would deny it SINCE YOU KNOW that NO human ever saw a live stegosaur. You probably can’t see that most everything you say, you base on your belief system since you live by faith as all of us do. But the Lord Jesus Christ said, “Have faith in God”, that is the faith that you so badly need John.

    Ekkman

  18. John Bebbington April 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm #

    Danny wrote:

    John, I couldn’t find it so I will paste it again here for you to answer.

    Danny, seek and ye shall find. I told you exactly where to look but you still couldn’t find it. I’m tempted to say that you are sitting on it. No, not your elbow.

    I have copied the reply and will post it immediately after posting this insult.

  19. Geno Castagnoli April 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    Danny wrote:
    There are educated guesses that over 10,000 scientists do not believe in macro evolution.

    ######
    Geno asks:
    Do you have a reference for that?

    The last time Danny made his (unsupported) claim, I pointed out the “Dissent from Darwinism” statement had something like 817 signatures while NCSE’s counter, “Project Steve” had over 1400.

    Since “Steve” (and its derivitive names) represent only 1% of the population, the 1400 signatories to the “Project Steve” statement represent over 140,000 scientists.

    That would mean only about 0.5% of scientists differ with “Darwinism.” Hardly what I’d call enough to be significant.

  20. John Bebbington April 20, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    CSE wrote:

    Floppy, please use a real name next time, or your comments will no longer be approved.

    What sort of name is “CSE”?

    I rather like Floppy McChung. Is it rude? If so, shame on you CSE.

    • CSE April 21, 2011 at 10:46 am #

      It’s not that it is rude. Our posting policy is that you must use a real name. 🙂

  21. andrew Ryan April 20, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    Cse, Dawkins isn’t infallible – he just happens to be right, on this issue at least. I quoted him on this thread as he gave the perfect response to Eric’s blog.

    By the way CSE, if you’re responding to posts, any chance you can address the question I repeatedly posted regarding Kent’s claim about the Sir Arthur Keith quote?

  22. Jeff Brace April 20, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    I feel terribly bad for Dawkins. It’s obvious he had a very bad childhood. I am reminded of one of his conversations about evolution. When pressed about the big bang and the beginning of life he ended up saying the earth was seeded by aliens and walked out. Jonathan Sarfati’s response to Richard Dawkins’ latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth is quite adequately titled The Greatest Hoax on Earth. He puts every argument Dawkins makes to shame. It’s a good read.

  23. John Bebbington April 20, 2011 at 3:34 pm #

    Danny, sorry, but I have changed my mind as it will mean spending a lot of time reformatting the post.

    Go to the article “Did the dinosaurs become extinct?” (Yes) and scroll down to the last but one post. Enlightenment awaits.

  24. John Bebbington April 20, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    Danny, you provided the following quote:

    “One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”
    Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA),

    Why?

    Yockey also wrote:

    “The fundamental consideration in evolution is the genome, not the fossil record. Gaps in the fossil record do not matter. What matters is that there are no gaps in the continuity of the genome from the origin of life to the present. It is the continuity of the genome that shows the connectedness of all life-living, extinct and yet-to-be-evolved. That means there are no gaps in which species miraculously appear, as Intelligent Design falsely claims.”

    What’s your reply?

  25. John Bebbington April 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Danny:

    because we all need a little humor in our lives at times. By the way, that is probably another reason why I study evolution some, it is a funny religion.

    “I study evolution some.” What does that mean? Whenever I ask YECists what books they have read recently on the relevant subject all I get in response is slience.

    So I ask you yet again, please list the last 3 books you have read by mainstream scientists. Until you do that very simple task I will not believe that you “study evolution some”.

    And that goes for Stephen, Caleb, Walton, Joshua too. I challenge each of you to supply that list.

  26. Jack Napper April 20, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    Darwin said that if MILLIONS of transitional fossils were not found in the next hundred years, then the theory should be abandoned,…

    Andy-
    Please tell me where you find this quote? How much you wanna bet you gleamed that quote mine from a Creationist web site? I then suggest reading Chapter 6 of the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species.

    …and yet here we are today with a few skimpy bones.

    So then you should have had no problem listing them. I bet for every ONE you list in your response we can name at the very least 5.

    Second; If Dawkins is so tired of fighting creationist, then why does he keep fighting? Why doesn’t he (and you) just ignore us, do your research, and let the evidence lead you.

    For the same reason that if group of guerillas are try to take over a country you don’t just let them have it. This is rather a silly question as the Creationist agenda isn’t to fight evidence with evidence but to fight with sound bites and propaganda…oh and scaremongering.

    However, if the evolutionists start the fight and try to preach their theory as fact, it is only right that they should be questioned.

    Stephen- I covered this in my post. I hope you read it. ALL science should be met with skepticism. However, when strawman arguments and goal post shifting are the best you’ve got perhaps it’s time to sit down, shut up and try to learn something. Then perhaps you can come back with better skepticism than your armchair science that make grade school kids laugh.

    The problem with Dawkins’ little analogy is that it doesn’t properly describe the situation.

    Actually it does. It deals with wasted time fielding questions from ignorant people who don’t wanna learn but rather spew their garbage. If you missed this perhaps the problem isn’t the analogy but your reading comprehension.

    Imagine that you are teaching evolution and someone says demonstrate it. You will say wait ten thousand years.

    Caleb-
    Your argument is plain silly. Can you describe a simple experiment which could be performed on the fly in a secondary school classroom to support or falsify evolution? A lever is easy. Holding your breath is to. Thanks for the laugh though.

    Yeah, because Dawkins is infallible (We hope you picked up on the sarcasm.)

    Obviously you missed the point of the post. Sad really.

    If Evolutionary Theory has stood the test of time why is it still a THEORY?

    Really? Did you REALLY waste your time typing that?

    A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

    Mr. Ray,
    You said that anyone who attempted to go against what Dawkins said would just get embarrassed like as if Dawkins words are not refutable, or are inerrant or something. That’s why we posted.

    CSE-
    As you obviously missed the point I assume you simply like posting in duplicate.

  27. John Bebbington April 20, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote:

    Have you ever done that on this website, or are you content to see Jack, John, Duane, Carl, and andrew perish without Christ?

    Stephen, that’s not fair. What about Geno? You didn’t mention Geno. Danny says he is not a Christian and therefore, impliedly, must surely perish in his own Catholic-invented hell.

    Please condemn Geno for me – if only to keep Danny happy ‘coz, even though God has been looking after every personal detail, Danny has been having a hard time of late.

  28. John Bebbington April 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    Pablo, you are confused.

    John, the alligator and the seal are not going through macroevolution. Very bad examples to make your point.

    No animal has ever gone “through macroevolution”. Or even microevolution, for that matter.

    I never said you told me about the assumptions.

    I never mentioned assumptions or facts. Presumably, you don’t claim the $250,000.

    all evolution literature is built upon assumptions.

    Give me a short list detailing such assumptions and i’ll address them

  29. Corey April 20, 2011 at 6:24 pm #

    @Danny

    My answer is near the bottom of the “Journey to Peru – Day Three” post along with Geno and Jack’s comments.

  30. Duane April 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm #

    No, Danny. I’m right. Your whole worldview is based upon wishful thinking, outdated myths and superstitions, and a cultural misunderstanding when a 1st Century Jewish mystery cult was taken over by Gentiles in the 2nd and 3rd Century. The Trinity was invented by them, as it is not Biblical. By the way, hope you are saving your videos. Google is erasing them at the end of April.

    And now, I’m off to Des Moines.

  31. Truth_Seeker H April 21, 2011 at 1:39 am #

    Hi Evolutionists,

    Please explain Who or what in your case holds the ballance between male and female populations?

    World population:
    Total: 6,829,360,438
    Male: 3,442,850,573
    Female: 3,386,509,865

    source: UN Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. “World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision”.

  32. Jennifer Preston April 21, 2011 at 6:26 am #

    Andy, Ask to have a look in the vaults at the Natural History Museum in London, they have a wealth of transitional fossils stored there.

    Stephen Holshouser wrote:

    “The problem with Dawkins’ little analogy is that it doesn’t properly describe the situation. It would be more accurate to say the Roman history teacher was trying to force the students to believe that the Romans came from a rock thru natural processes over billions of years, instead of simply teaching about Roman literature and culture! Just stick to the facts and leave your religion at home if you don’t want to waste time arguing about it!”

    Yes but if you want to use the “were you there?” argument, technically believing the Romans existed would count as Religion as none of us were actually there to witness them.

    Caleb Fielding wrote:

    “Imagine that you are teaching evolution and someone says demonstrate it. You will say wait ten thousand years.”

    Walton Stone wrote:

    “If Evolutionary Theory has stood the test of time why is it still a THEORY?”

    Caleb and Walton, I suggest you read my posts on Proof vs Persuasion, particularly the ones describing what a scientific theory actually is and how natural selection falls under it.

  33. Corey April 21, 2011 at 7:34 am #

    Funny, that Eric complains that schools do not want evolution to be critique when the “Vestigal” post is not open to comments for critique.

    It seems that Eric and Kent are the ones who cannot handle the fight.

  34. Andy April 21, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    Geno
    You say 99% of scientists believe in evolution. fine, at one point, 99% of scientists thought the earth was flat. Look at world from an UNBIASED view and you will see God’s creation as well as evidence for a young earth

  35. Andy April 21, 2011 at 8:21 am #

    andrew,
    I woould invite you to stop telling us about all this evidence that doesn’t exist and maybe show us some. I don’t see it, you don’t talk about it.

    “it is a perfect analogy for the very reason that there IS so much evidence”

    excuse me, could you please demonstrate a bit of this evidence for us. Maybe a few Roman coins or an ancient account of the Roman World? I can tell you I own a Hippo and you could say; “no you don’t” and I could say “ah but your just ignoring the evidence that I own a Hippo, your unscientific.”
    leave your religion at home!

  36. Geno Castagnoli April 21, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    Andy wrote:
    Geno
    You say 99% of scientists believe in evolution. fine, at one point, 99% of scientists thought the earth was flat. Look at world from an UNBIASED view and you will see God’s creation as well as evidence for a young earth

    #####
    Geno answers:
    1) My comment about 99% of scientists was directed at Danny who claims 10,000 scientists reject evolution. If he’s going to introduce claims like that, it’s only reasonable to put the claim in perspective.

    2) You say “at one point, 99% of scientists thought the earth was flat.” Well, I guess it’s also safe to point out that at one time 99% of scientists thought there had been a global flood and 99% of scientists thought the Earth was only a few thousand years old. It was the EVIDENCE that convinced them otherwise.

    3) I do look at it from an “UNBIASED view” (as much as humanly possible). It’s CSE, not I, who displays their bias when they openly state:
    “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture.” How can that be called, by any stretch of the imagination “UNBIASED?” It’s CSE and the YEC who openly declare their bias. On the other and, I attempt to approach the evidence with no preconception (either way) about scripture.

    So, who is it that’s biased? The one who attempts to approach the evidence objectively or the one who has openly declared, before even examining the evidence, that if it conflicts with (their interpretation of) Scripture, it is INVALID?

    I suggest if you want to complain about bias, you should be addressing the complaint to CSE, not I.

  37. Caleb Fielding April 21, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    John Bebbington

    So I ask you yet again, please list the last 3 books you have read by mainstream scientists. Until you do that very simple task I will not believe that you “study evolution some”.

    And that goes for Stephen, Caleb, Walton, Joshua too. I challenge each of you to supply that list.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Not sure what you mean by main stream scientest but here goes, “The Main Meridians (Encyclopedia of Dim-Mak)” by wally simpson, “Ultimate Flexibility” by sang h kim, and “tang soo do soo bahk do” by hwang kee. Actually looking for a good book on nutrition and athletes right now if you have any suggestions it would be appreciated.

    Now that I mentioned my three why dont you mention your three, and maybe a couple I “should” be reading.

    Oh by the way I am a martial artist and these books are pertinent to what I do they are filled with biology, anatomy and physics, if you dont believe me get them and find out. They do not deal with evolution, they do expect the 6 or 7 billion people in the world to be the same, if not they would include a chapter on what to do with an evolved human, or how to stretch if you are an evolved human etc etc etc.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Jack Napper

    Your argument is plain silly. Can you describe a simple experiment which could be performed on the fly in a secondary school classroom to support or falsify evolution? A lever is easy. Holding your breath is to. Thanks for the laugh though.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………..

    As I said earlier I do martial arts, have been for 7 years. In that environment I would point out you have someone from asian descent and you have someone from european descent, for thousands of years those in asia have been practicing martial arts, if evolution is true the asian guy should be able to do stuff the europeon should not be able to do, but that isnt so. Because of evolution the asian should always be better but chuck norris was a five time world karate champion and he is a mixture of irish and native american blood.

    and by the way sometimes we get these young kids in there that think because they are chinese or japanese they are just gonna kick everybody elses butt because they do that in the movies, then they find out real quick they aint no better than anybody else. and I have shown them that in class, with stretching sparring kata’s etc

    not sure if that is considered secondary education though.

  38. John Bebbington April 21, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Jeff Brace wote:

    When pressed about the big bang and the beginning of life he ended up saying the earth was seeded by aliens and walked out.

    No, he didn’t. Another untruth from Jeff Brace. Why is it that you guys have such trouble understanding simple English.

    Here he is commenting on what he actually said:

    ..life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen.

    Jonathan Sarfati’s response to Richard Dawkins’ latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth is quite adequately titled The Greatest Hoax on Earth. He puts every argument Dawkins makes to shame. It’s a good read.

    People who think that would also enjoy Noddy in Toytown

  39. andrew Ryan April 21, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Jeff Brace: “When pressed about the big bang and the beginning of life he ended up saying the earth was seeded by aliens and walked out”

    Utter nonsense Jeff. I might as well say that YOU had a bad childhood if you have to resort to such lies rather than actually addressing the point. Half a million bucks if you can find a source for the alledged conversation. And no, it didn’t happen in ‘Expelled’. Google ‘lying for jesus dawkins aliens’ to read the story behind the ‘seeded by aliens’ lie.

  40. Andy April 21, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    Jennifer Preston
    If there are so many trans-fossils why don’t we ever hear about them? You are probably talking about guys like Neanderthal, who by the way, was genetically proven to be COMPLETELY HUMAN, not part ape. Others were a mix of a human skull and a orang-utan jaw, seriously, if you have to go that low you know the theory is WRONG.

  41. John Bebbington April 21, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    Please explain Who or what in your case holds the ballance between male and female populations?

    Truthseeker_H,

    I could answer that for you but I’m afraid that it is my and CSE’s policy that you must use a real name to post on this site. See rule 3.

    • CSE April 21, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

      Yeah, what John said. 🙂

  42. Stephen Holshouser April 21, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    John B,

    “I study evolution some.” What does that mean? Whenever I ask YECists what books they have read recently on the relevant subject all I get in response is slience. So I ask you yet again, please list the last 3 books you have read by mainstream scientists. Until you do that very simple task I will not believe that you “study evolution some”. And that goes for Stephen, Caleb, Walton, Joshua too. I challenge each of you to supply that list.”

    How am I supposed to know what Danny the Ekkman has been reading?? He would be much more qualified to answer that.

  43. John Bebbington April 21, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    Danny wrote:

    Even if someone gave you absolute proof that they lived side by side you would deny it SINCE YOU KNOW that NO human ever saw a live stegosaur.

    Not if it was “absolute proof”. I would have to accept it. That is what absolute proof means.

    However, as such proof has never been given to anybody in recorded history as far as anybody is aware and that there is much evidence to the contrary I feel 1 x 10^150 certain that live stegosaurs have never lived alongside man. That still leaves a (1/10^150) chance that I may be wrong so my mind is still open to the possibility However, scratches on unattested rocks do not constitute any sort of proof.

  44. Jennifer Preston April 21, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    CSE…Maybe Floppy is his real name…I can think of worse.

    On Proof vs Persuasion
    Eric Terrell wrote:

    “does anything resembling order ever arise out an explosion?”

    Um, first of all the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space-time. Secondly, order did not arise from this expansion. Yep, phyics says that we are more disordered now than a few seconds after the initial expansion of space-time. Think about it. A few seconds after space-time started to expand there were only the simple building blocks of hydrogen. Now, some 13.7 billion years later, we have 93 naturally occuring elements and these elements can react with each other to form much more complicated substances such as DNA, RNA.. pretty much everything we see today is far more complicated and less ordered than it was 13.7 billion years ago.

    On an interesting side note; From a documentary on the BBC called “Do we really need the moon?”; it’s on Youtube. There is an experiment you can do, what you do is mix the basic chemicals found in the ocean and add water, essentially reproducing a tidal pool, then when the tide goes out the Sun would’ve shined on it, heating it up so you heat your mixture up with a bunsen burner, then you put your mixture into a tube and expose it to ultraviolet light, recreating the power of the Sun. This then changes the chemistry of your mixture to produce the elements of RNA. All by recreating the conditions present on the Earth.

    I just thought that was interesting.

  45. Stephen Holshouser April 21, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    Jennifer,

    You wrote,
    “Natural Selection says that POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals, so it is very likely that the first two, what we would class as humans, lived together and that is where I believe original sin came from.”

    Thanks for answering. I am curious as to your belief, so if you will continue to humor me; Since populations evolve, not individuals what do you believe gave birth to these humans? Were these first 2 humans brother and sister, or did two separate non-human families produce human offspring at the same period of time? What did the offspring of these first 2 humans marry? What was the sin of these first 2 humans? I am very interested in your thoughts if you will supply them. Thanks in advance! Also, I would ask you to study Romans 5.

  46. Stephen Holshouser April 21, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    John B,

    “Stephen, that’s not fair. What about Geno? You didn’t mention Geno. Danny says he is not a Christian and therefore, impliedly, must surely perish in his own Catholic-invented hell. Please condemn Geno for me if only to keep Danny happy coz, even though God has been looking after every personal detail, Danny has been having a hard time of late.

    I don’t know why you’ve had it in for Geno lately with the subtle “Catholic-invented hell” and “pulsating bloody heart muscle during the mass” jabs. I thought you guys were buds But why would I condemn Geno? He faithfully teaches his students that the Bible is fundamentally flawed, prays to the virgin mother, bows to the authority of Rome, and has taken part of all the Catholic sacraments What would he have to worry about?

  47. Geno Castagnoli April 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    On another note…..

    Eric wrote:
    they don’t think it would be fair for students to give it a scientific critique!

    #####
    Geno notes:
    It shouldn’t be necessary to point this out, but students are hardly qualifed to offer a “scientific critique” on material to which they have barely been introduced. For instance, if they have just been introduced to what a “light year” is and don’t understand Doppler shifts, they certainly don’t know enough to engage in a serious discussion of Setterfield, Humphreys or Lisle’s models.

    Simply stated, it would be a waste of valuable class time to engage in a scientific debate with students on matters that are W-A-Y over their heads.

  48. John Bebbington April 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    Yeah, what John said.

    Thanks CSE,

    Please may I ban Jeff for telling fibs?

    • CSE April 22, 2011 at 8:43 am #

      John,
      Sorry, only we can ban others. Besides, if it is only the grounds of telling fibs, then, by definition of our argument, all the evolutionists would get banned. 😉

  49. John Bebbington April 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    Andy wrote:

    You say 99% of scientists believe in evolution. fine, at one point, 99% of scientists thought the earth was flat.

    At what point was that?

    The Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere; quite a few of them still do. If people considered the world was flat it was because the Bible seemed to indicate it.

    But if you are correct that 99% of “scientists” thought the Earth was flat then there must have been at least 100 of them. This I doubt so please would you list their names so I can check.

  50. John Bebbington April 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    Jennifer wrote:

    CSE Maybe Floppy is his real name I can think of worse.

    No,Jennifer. That’s as bad as it gets.