Kentucky Republicans passed education legislation in 2009 that made it easier to compare the state’s students to other states. Now they’re very upset that the results came back Stupid.
“I think we are very committed to being able to take Kentucky students and put them on a report card beside students across the nation,” said Republican Sen. David Givens. “We’re simply saying to the ACT people we don’t want what is a theory to be taught as a fact in such a way it may damage students’ ability to do critical thinking.”

So, learning to think critically about religion is bad while not doing so with science is good? Huh.

  1. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Ok, I plainly state it. You have uncritically accepted the premise “fossil fuels” come from organic carbon.

    So much so, when the same carbon is found on planets which never had dinosaurs, you persist in calling it “organic carbon.”

    This means oil is not a product of the planet only, but was added to the planets during their formation, perhaps by an exploding star.

    This means oil coats the planet, is found everywhere…and its impossible we run out anytime soon, as the earth is 2/3rds water and we have not exhausted the reserves on the 1/3rd above water.

    It also means we will find the miracle oil to use when exploring space….planet hopping…and it may even exist outside of our solar system.

    Yet you let them spend billions trying to make much less efficient means of energy, work….and allow them to force you into go cart cars, and soon pay perhaps $15.00 a gallon….all because you are uncritical…don’t appreciate the gift oil is, and organic biodegradable product from which comes the myriad of products from plastics to cheap energy that makes modern life liberal love so much…and allows them to tweet idiocy to each other in tweet land….etc

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      In the same way you uncritically accept the lies about oil, so you do with the stupid proposition chance created order…when all our experience testifies you cannot roll sevens fast enough, for that to happen.

      Whatever order chance creates, it will also destroy as any box of alphabets will illustrate.

      Suppose you have a mindless “hand” that scoops up alphabets into a box, shakes the box and then spills them out.

      Eventually you will see “order: ABCDEFG etc”.

      And the evolutionists beams joyfully, “see, chance can create order….life.”

      BUT chance is mindless, there is no intelligence that tells the hand to stop after the order is created….so the same process of scooping up the Alphabets…scrambling them in the box, continues unabated….destroying the order it just created.

      Therefore “whatever chance creates, it will also annihilate.”

      There is only on possible reason for the intelligence manifest in everything throughout creation…especially in life in all its forms….an intelligent creator.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        Especially this being a matrix, where pixelation occurs at the sub atomic level analogous to pixelation in a sim.

        Everything is quantum, till we look at it, just as in a simulation.

        Clearly it couldn’t be more correct to say:

        20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Rom 1:20 KJV)

        17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col 1:17 KJV)

        • Hyph3n says:

          You are an interesting cat. Yes, we find simply “organic” molecules all over the universe. They’re not tough to make. All we need is a little hydrogen, carbon and an energy source. The early Earth was covered in them, and under the right circumstances, the molecules can replicate themselves. This would become much later DNA.

          Oil is a different thing. It is not simple methane. We do not find that on other planets (where is it on Mars or Venus or asteroids?)

          I’m happy to talk quantum mechanics or the Law of Thermodynamics if you would like too.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            You’re half way there:

            The presence of methane on Saturn’s moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biology,[1][38] for example by Thomas Gold.[2] (Terrestrial natural gas is comprised primarily of methane). Some comets contain “massive amounts of an organic material almost identical to high grade oil shale (kerogen),” the equivalent of cubic kilometers of such mixed with other material;[61] for instance, corresponding hydrocarbons were detected during a probe fly-by through the tail of Comet Halley in 1986.[62]


            Not a fossil fuel:

            You cannot rule out extra terrestrial oil.

            As for quantum mechanics, I cited an aspect of it scientists believe correct.

            I have to take their word on this.

            Do you say they are wrong?

            The Second Law is my friend, nothing is growing more complex….nothing is evolving, everything follows the second law…its all devolving…

            Prove that wrong, show where the 2nd law is contradicted.

            Thanks in advance.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            And it was recently said they found the Higgs…but in reality they found a particle with inertia, not mass. The suppose the two are here related. They might not be.

            I can believe a matrix would have a Higgs like particle to “simulate” mass via inertia through the ether….

            But mass hasn’t been found by the LHC.

          • So what says:

            “As for quantum mechanics, I cited an aspect of it scientists believe correct.

            I have to take their word on this.”

            Alfie not only are you an idiot, you’re also a hypocrite.

            By the way evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics see “It’s a wonderful life a history of the Burgess Shale” by Stephen J. Gould.

          • So what says:

            P.S. What is the purpose of the human eye?

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            re the quantum state super hot or super cold, observable…its not just theory.

            I cited the graphite experiment, on youtube there is Dr. Quantum and the double slit experiment…

            All documenting everything is in a quantum state, not fixed.

            Pixelation is thus common to both sims, and us.

            So in the infinite Mind of God, all things consist, have their being, coherence:

            28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; (Act 17:28 KJV)

            17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col 1:17 KJV)

            All this confirms the God of the Bible cannot be of human invention…being finite, and macro…we would never invent a God so wonderful….infinite:

            27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? (1Ki 8:27 KJV)

            The God of the Bible doesn’t exist in space-time, space time is in Him and He gives it coherence.

        • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

          Begging the question:

          P.S. What is the purpose of the human eye?

          You failed to address how the human eye, with all its parts fully functional, could “appear” in one generation.

          BECAUSE its impossible the eye developed over many generations as none of the parts individually are beneficial mutations.

          For example, having a hole in your head, as you know, lets the air in….

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            By the way evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics see “It’s a wonderful life a history of the Burgess Shale” by Stephen J. Gould.

            Of course it does, the Second Law is evident everything as entropy, decay…going from the complex to the simple.

            Even human language, contrary to the liberal progressive anti-colonialists (Obama’s America 2016) and marxist loons….the more ancient langues like Chinese etc are more complex than English.

            Everything tends downward t a simpler state, a state of rest.

            Where you brain is. at the nadir of the field.

          • So what says:

            For a critical thinker you missed the thinking part again. Function is part of the design. If you can’t explain the purpose you will never understand the function. As such you cannot understand the evolution of the eye.

            As usual you can’t even answer a simple third grade science question and resort to religious babbling.

            If you actually knew anything about biology let alone evolution or heaven forbid third grade science you would understand that speciation is not the same as diversity, and that diversity has been decreasing over time as expected by the second law.

            “Everything tends downward t a simpler state, a state of rest.” Alfie if you get any simpler they will have to feed you with a tube.

          • So what says:

            P.S What is the purpose of the human eye?

          • Hyph3n says:

            What is the purpose of the human eye? Am I missing something? It’s to see. Animals that had in had a huge advantage over animals that didn’t. And who said anything about it appearing in one generation? It started out as a little sensitive nerve probably on single cell organisms. Then as a depression to give some directionality, then pin hole camera like, so on and so on over millions of years. We see those forms of eyes in other creatures… We can trace the evolution. And it makes more sense then just appearing on a Saturday.

            Evolution doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamic, but creating the universe in seven days 4000 years ago sure as Hell does (plus practically every other law of physics.)

            There is nothing in that law that says one part of a system can not become more ordered so long as the entropy in the entire system increases. In 5 billion years, when the Sun expands to engulf the Earth, our world will be quite a bit more disordered then it is now.

            Let me ask a few questions: if the universe is only 4000 years old, how do we see stars millions of light years away? Why do South America and Africa look like they once fit together? And why did God put all the animals into neat categories… Why do we not see cats with eight legs or furry snakes?

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            Yes, you are missing facts. You cannot produce evidence for your “sensitive nerve” become one of the thousands of different kinds of eyes we find in various animals. As far as we find fossils of animals, they have eyes.

            Moreover, you assume 7 days of equal length to days today, but physicists suppose time dilation was in play during the first moments of creation, during “inflation.”


            However, considering the infinitude of God, its clearly implied God took His time savoring every moment of creation:

            31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen 1:31 KJV)

            God restrained Himself, took much more time than He needed, 6 days to create all things, when He could have done it instantly.

            Evolution is the direct opposite of entropy, which is the 2nd Law in action. Nothing in our experience evolves. A building left to itself doesn’t become a skyscraper, it becomes rubble. Radiation decays, as does everything in our experience.

            You propose a system can become more ordered as entropy increases….can you cite any examples.

            Assuming creation is your example, is circular reasoning and begging the question entirely.

            Moreover, I am convince we are in a “Matrix” analogous to a computer simulation, therefore “apparent age” is no problem.

            For example, God could imagine a universe 80 billion light years big, and it would be so instantly….in an nanosecond of time. To us, thinking the present is the same as the past, would get it wrong thinking light actually traveled to us….when in reality, God created all instantly, including the traveling light.

            “Inflation” in a Matrix would be instantaneous….the moment God imagined time-space as being 80 billion light years big (if not more), it would be exactly that in an instant of time.

            You ignored pixilation at the micro level indicating this is a matrix. A matrix would explain why “mass,” something truly solid…doesn’t exist in reality, only as a proposition.. Hence the Higgs was born to fill the void….and now they have found a particle that manifests “inertia”….but mass remains only an idea.

            However, if this isn’t a matrix, there remains LOTS of evidence for a young earth and solar system, for example .mountains would be level from erosion if these were millions of years old etc….and the seas as salty as the Dead Sea….

            As for God putting everything “according to its kind”, why would He mix things up and not enjoy making things unique, different?

            Your arguments fail to prove any of your points….but feel free to try again.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            In other words, everything said about the Higgs could be 100% correct, but its still not mass.

            Its a particle that manifests an attribute of mass, inertia.

            Would not a matrix require a Higgs to simulate mass?

            Yes, it would.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            In the interest of full disclosure, I’m well read but not a physicist.

            In fact, I never completed high school.

            So I do rely upon the expert opinions and hypothesis of others

            As for Greek and Hebrew, what little I know is self taught. But thanks be to God, there is a plethora of original language helps that allow everyone to check the accuracy of any translation. And I rely upon those authorities also.

            So I don’t claim to be anyone, I only claim to be right.

          • So what says:

            “What is the purpose of the human eye? Am I missing something? It’s to see.”

            Yes you are missing something.

            Alfie if you can’t understand the question how can you ever hope to understand the answer.

            What is the purpose of the human eye?

          • Hyph3n says:

            Wow… Where to start? How about entropy. When crystals form they create a more orderly system. When you draw a royal flush from a deck of cards (which happens once out of every half million times) a more orderly system is created. Neither violates the concept of entropy.

            In my theory of how the eye developed, we should see simpler forms of the eye in more primitive animals, and although they may be different types of eyes, related classes such as mammals should have similar types of eyes. We do. In your theory, it is only God’s will that created eyes, so there is no erase for a mouse not to have compound eyes or a snail not to have baby blues.

            If God create an eye out of nothing, then have Him do it again right in front of me to prove it. That would convince me.

            If you truly believe we live in a Matrix reality, then why does reality follow any laws? Why do we need DNA? Why couldn’t it be God’s will that cause cells to divide? Why did God put galaxies millions of light years away? Why are there other stars anyway? Why isn’t it just holes in a celestial sphere?

            I can make predictions about the world around us. I can tell you what the universe will be like in 15 billion years. They may be wrong, but they are still testable (for the most part) predictions. Beyond the rapture, what can you predict?

            I just don’t understand why Creationsist bother. Modern physics has plenty of wild theories of it own (look up reality being a 3D projection off a 2D surface) and none of it discount the existence of God. Sorry, God if He or She exist may not be an old man in robes living on the cloud– but He/She would be something much more interesting.

            So you’re God is so powerful, he could create the universe in an instant, but he couldn’t use the Big Bang and evolution to do it?

  2. bobbo, atheists in charge could not make the church look any worse says:

    Alfie – urine idiot.

    Eye see this constantly from you: the idiocy of the religious mindset: there is only one answer.

    “Oil” most likely has many sources of origination, not just one. For grin hypo #1, lts say its 3% compression of H, C, O deep within the earth, .o1% squashed dinosaurs, 95% single celled aquatic life, and 2% bog material.

    Does this add up? You do the math and tell us why you want to focus on one process rather than understand them all in context?

    Everyone knows, eyes are to find the beer.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      irrelevant, immaterial and therefore incompetent.

      That oil can originate many ways ONLY supports its likely to be found extra-terrestrially.

      What a dork.

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      Bobbo, they built a huge collider to find a particle that exhibits inertia passing through the Higgs field….but we would have saved them lots of time and effort if we just sent your brain to them…

      When put on top of a razor’s edge….it looks like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.

  3. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    The next time you all are flapping your limp wrists in the moonlight, playing grab ass with the daisy chain…

    Consider what all this means, nothing is being done in a “corner,” everything is being observed:

    14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
    15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
    16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
    17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

    (Rev 6:14-1 KJV)

  4. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    For a critical thinker you missed the thinking part again. Function is part of the design. If you can’t explain the purpose you will never understand the function. As such you cannot understand the evolution of the eye.

    There you go again, opening your mouth only to change feet.

    Your argument is circular, a fallacy. ” A synonym of “function” is purpose, so in effect you argue “If you can’t explain the purpose you will never understand the purpose.”

    Babble, and circular reasoning.

    And you are begging the question, obviously sight is beneficial to the survival and reproduction of an organism.

    Your problem is, you can’t get to a fully functional eye, in one generation.

    There are hundreds of parts to an eye, and if any of them fail to exist or function correctly, then the organism in blind and there is no benefit to having eyes…which means the characteristic won’t be passed down…

    Of course, evolutionists understand the impeccable nature of this argument, hence they redefine evolution to make it non falsifiable….

    But that also makes it unsound for anything.

    • So what says:

      Alfie What is the purpose of the human eye?

      Please no help from the rest of the class.

      If you do it for him he will never learn to do for himself. He will think it’s normal for someone to hand him the answer and fail to learn to think.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        Stop wasting my time and state your case, make your argument.

        State what you claim is the eye’s purpose, and then explain how that is relevant to whatever proposition you are putting forth.

        Then I will devastate your argument, and make an observation about your brain or lack thereof.

        • So what says:

          Testy testy as I said before if you cannot under stand the question how will you ever under stand the answe

          What is the purpose of the human eye?

          I will give you a hint it’s not to ‘see”.

          • So what says:

            Oops should have been under and answer. Darn kindle keyboard.

          • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

            Debate doesn’t work that way…

            Its clear you don’t have the intellectual tools to state your case clearly, and then defend it.

            Here’s an example of an argument.

            Why can’t So What mind his own business?
            1)No mind
            2)No business.

            Although in the form of a question, the premise clearly is “So What can’t mind his own business.”

            The two irrefutable proofs of that proposition, # 1 & #2, followed.

            That’s how its done.

  5. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    So you problem is you want to argue a point, but don’t know how. Usually you make claims, but don’t support them….and suppose that is convincing.

    A statement without proof is not convincing. It can be entertaining, but its not meant to convince…to prove a point.

    For example, this is a claim without supporting proof:

    “Next to So What’s head, his jaws are the biggest bones in his body.”

    Notice the lack of proof for the claims. While true nonetheless, it was not an argument.

    I await your argument about eyeballs with much anticipation…that it will leave us all LOL for its sheer stupidity.

    So, Go ahead, state your argument….make my day.

    • So what says:

      Alfie you said “In the interest of full disclosure, I’m well read but not a physicist. In fact, I never completed high school. So I do rely upon the expert opinions and hypothesis of others.”

      Alfie that’s the second time I have seen you use your stated lack of formal education as an excuse and an excuse is exactly what it is. You never throw that one out until after you have exhausted all of your other avenues. You know, bluff, bluster, and bible verses. Do you expect slack because you said you didn’t finish high school? If you are you’re barking up the wrong tree with this group, and you damn well won’t get it from me.

      Every day I work with water and wastewater operators who never completed high school. They operate multimillion dollar water and wastewater treatment facilities; they understand the complexity of the chemical and physical reactions used to treat drinking water and the population dynamics, ecological, and physical nature of activated sludge and facultative wastewater treatment. I’ve been doing this work for over twenty years and they still surprise the hell out me at how well they can hold there own with or surpass operators and regulators with better educations. The difference between you and them is they want, no a better term is they are passionate, to learn something. You clearly are not.

      “I’m well read” No, I actually suspect you’re not. Tell the class what was the last book on evolution that you read, not webpage, not an article, not a blog, a real book. I mean read, not skimmed, glanced, or noticed, read from cover to cover. I mean one that is not an attack, critique, or religious demonizing of evolution, a book that provides the reader with the history, concept, and evidence of the theory and process of evolution in a simple concise manner. I personally have suggested at least a dozen to you, not one of those books is an attack on creationism or religion. They are straight forward non technical reasonably entertaining tomes for the general public that offer only explanation and the evidence that you can take or leave, all of them are available on Amazon and most can be found in a reasonably well stocked public library. Have you broken the spine on even one?

      “So I do rely upon the expert opinions and hypothesis of others.” You appear to only read and rely on opinions from experts that coincide with yours. Personally, I am an atheist yet I have read the Bible, the Koran, and The Book of Mormon. I just finished up Strobels “The Case for the Real Jesus”. I will admit I am a sucker for the History Channel whenever they do one of those Saturday evening god themed nights (Hell the devil’s domain, Books banned from the bible), I find them damn entertaining. I am a biologist, so yes, I do believe in evolution, yet I have read “Darwin’s Black Box”, “Evolution a Theory in Crisis”, and “The Case Against Evolution” even if I do not agree with the position I at least I take the time to investigate the other side. All of those books and more sit side by side with my copies of “Origin of Species”, “Panda’s Thumb” “Naturalist” and “Blueprints” etc. Now if I could just get them all on my Kindle!

      All I have asked is a simple question, not an argument (Think of it as a Zen Koan). What is the purpose of the human eye? A critical thinker like you should have had no problem answering the question. That you cannot shows that you either can’t comprehend the question or do not know the answer. Your mind is so narrow and walled that you can’t even open it enough to realize how simple the answer is. In that answer, is the explanation for the multiple evolutions of the eye including it’s evolution among humans. The truly sad part is that you are so narrow minded that if I simply told you the answer you still wouldn’t understand it.

      Even more to the point, why should I help you if you are not willing to help yourself? Oh wait, I did, by suggesting all of those books to you. I guess that means the real question for you to answer is, do you want to learn something new or continue living behind your wall?

      I don’t ridicule you because you’re ignorant; I ridicule you because you choose to stay that way.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        So many words, for such inept ad hominem.

        You claimed to have a point about eyeballs…which would devastate my Creationist position…we are still waiting.

        However, its likely your brain has suddenly realized what your mouth was saying…and to your horror….there is no point…no argument…

        So you tried to change the subject to me, a humble high school drop out, who evidently is intellectually beating you to a pulp.

        That’s sad… for you.

        • So what says:

          Actually it was series of observations based upon your previous and other historic comments. When I stated that you redefined stupidity, that was an attack,

  6. So what says:

    By the way, what is the purpose of the human eye?

    • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

      Its not my purpose to embarrass or even make fun of you…I really wanted to hear your “great anti Creationism via purpose of eyeball” argument.

      But you left me with little else to discuss.

      Go for it, state your argument….there is nothing left for you to lose.

      • So what says:

        Remember I never said it was an argument, as a matter of fact what I said was…”All I have asked is a simple question, not an argument (Think of it as a Zen Koan). What is the purpose of the human eye?”

        It is rather cute (in a naive way)that you thought we were debating.

        I will tell you what I will do. I will recommend one single book. That would be Blueprints by Edey and Johansen, you can find it on Amazon for the paltry sum of six dollars plus shipping if you can’t find a copy at the library. Today is the 19th that would give you two weeks to order it and/or read it. If you cannot supply the answer to the question, What is the purpose of the human eye? by the 2nd of September I will post the answer for you.

        • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

          Just as I thought, upon learning what you wrote about the eye, you immediately saw no chance in hell of winning an argument.

          The Bible is the Word of God, best selling book every year since the printing press was invented.

          Its that book I study, and it never fails to educate, and make wise:

          Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. (Psa 119:105 KJV)

          I recommend it highly.

  7. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    As Zev in LEXX said to Robot Head while on the planet water….”you have a tiny robot head chance…”

  8. bobbo, atheists in charge could not make the church look any worse says:

    What is the purpose of the human eye?

    Zen Koan: the identification of opposites?

    Well, I’ve bookmarked this thread to check back in 2-3 weeks to see how many more bible passages Alfie can throw against the wall, but I’ll play:

    A. Obviously, to see.
    B. There is no purpose, only a function.

    Both fit depending on the underlying philosophical base.

    I also am enthralled by water resource issues.

    Small world ain’t it? In only a Koan sort of way.

    • So what says:

      Bobbo you are half right. I won’t tell you which half, as I want to see if alfie is as well read as he claims to be.

  9. So what says:

    Well, its been two weeks and a day. So alfie did you do your homework? Did you ascertain the purpose of the human eye?

    I will check back in a day or two when I have time. Right now I need take a shower. Took a bit of time to cut up a hundred pounds or so of catfish and wash down the boat.

  10. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    I’ll bet Alfie didn’t bookmare/favorites this thread. I’m cleaning up mine, so this is my last visit.