Celebrate Human Achievement Hour
This weekend, enviro-zealots will celebrate “Earth Hour” by turning off their lights. They’ve pulled this stunt for a few years now. But this time, they’ve added a new twist: “This year, Earth Hour has been transformed into the world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming. For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming.”
How about voting for human achievement? Michelle Minton at the Competitive Enterprise Institute has a good proposal:
This week CEI announced the creation of Human Achievement Hour (HAH) to be celebrated at 8:30pm on March 28th 2009 (the same time and date of Earth Hour).
Our press release described ways people might celebrate the achievements of humanity such as eating diner, seeing a film, driving around, keeping the heat on in your home—all things that Earth Hour celebrators, presumably, should be refraining from. In the cheekiest manner, we claimed that anyone not foregoing the use of electricity in that hour is, by default, celebrating the achievements of human beings. Needless to say, the enviros in the blogosphere didn’t take to kindly to our announcement.
Matthew Wheeland, an environmental journalist called the holiday “mind-blowingly strange” and pondered if Earth hour folks are including in their numbers people in countries that don’t have enough electricity to make the choice to turn out their lights. Of course, they don’t have the choice to acquire electricity whereas anyone can choose to stop using human technology if they wish…
…Green and private conservation are fine. We have no problem with an individual (or group) that wants to sit naked in the dark without heat, clothing, or light. Additionally, we’d have no problem with the group holding a pro-green technology rally. That’s their choice. But when this group stages a “global election” with the express purpose of influencing “government policies to take action against global warming,” we have every right as individuals to express our vote for the opposite
If our Human Achievement Hour is at all a dig against Earth Hour, it is so only by the fact that we are pointing out what Earth Hour truly is about: it isn’t pro-earth, it is anti-man and anti-innovation. So, on March 28th I plan to continue “voting” for humanity by enjoying the fruits of man’s mind.
Here’s CEI’s HAH announcement that irked the Greenies:
Washington, D.C., March 19, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading free-market think tank, plans to recognize “Human Achievement Hour” between 8:30pm and 9:30pm on March 28, 2009. The new one-hour holiday coincides with Earth Hour, a period of time during which governments, individuals, and corporations have agreed to dim or shut off lights in an effort to draw attention to climate change.
“We are so proud that millions of people plan to show their appreciation for human achievement by doing things like eating dinner, watching television, going to the movies, and brushing their teeth,” says Human Achievement Hour Founder and CEI Policy Analyst Michelle Minton. “Never before has a new holiday caught on so quickly.”
The new one-hour holiday, unknown prior to this press release, has already received overwhelming support from many of Washington, D.C.’s leading institutions. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, for example, tells CEI that it does not plan to shut down all of the city’s bus and rail lines for the “Earth Hour.” The Kennedy Center, likewise, has scheduled a performance of the long-running play Sheer Madness, a jazz concert, and a dance performance to coincide with the Human Achievement Hour. Washington, D.C.’s Target store, furthermore, will remain open until 10:00pm on the evening of the 28th. The Smithsonian Institution also plans a film showing that will extend into Human Achievement Hour.
“We salute the people who keep the lights on and produce the energy that helps make human achievement possible,” says Myron Ebell, CEI’s Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy.
Other organizations around the world and the nation have planned events in support of the new holiday. For example, The United State Marine Corps will continue its combat and humanitarian operations around the world during Human Achievement Hour. The New York Times confirms that it intends to put out a paper on March 29th, 2009 (preparation and printing for that issue will take place during Human Achievement Hour). At least 30,000 movies will also be screened in celebration of Human Achievement Hour. Hospital emergency and operating rooms, likewise, will remain open in Washington and in the rest of the country. Nearly all of the nation’s Wal-Mart locations will also be open during Human Achievement Hour.
Those wishing to celebrate Earth Hour, however, do not need to take part in Human Achievement Hour. “Earth Hour is a viable alternative to human achievement hour,” says CEI Senior Fellow Eli Lehrer. “Those who wish to celebrate Earth Hour should sit in the dark, turn off the heat, and breathe as little as possible.”
It goes without saying that, except for CEI itself, the institutions listed above have not actually endorsed “Human Achievement Hour.” (All the quotes and facts, however, are real and may/should be used.)
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Electric Cars in China May Be Worse for the Environment Than Gas-Powered Cars
February 13, 2012 04:21 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Reminder: Global Warming Still Going to Cause Chocolate Shortage
February 11, 2012 02:31 PM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
Concrete Evidence Man is Causing Glacier Retreat
February 2, 2012 03:07 PM by Doug Powers
68 Comments
E-mail of the day: Media Matters coordinates with Capitol Hill “allies” on Keystone XL; Plus: 20,000 jobs “is not that many”
January 25, 2012 11:23 PM by Michelle Malkin
86 CommentsObama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments
Obama Admin. Rejects Keystone Pipeline; TransCanada Can Reapply After Finding Alternate Route; Updated
January 18, 2012 12:13 PM by Doug Powers
159 Comments
GM to Call Back Chevy Volts
January 5, 2012 08:59 PM by Doug Powers
71 Comments
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Eco-folly.
I need to remember to turn all my lights on tomorrow night at 8:30….
….because it has been really cold up here in NH the last couple of days. Bring on that warming!!!
I’ll turn every light in the house on. I’ll watch tv, maybe even make popcorn!
I used to love, when I was in pest control, to tell the greenies that I used extra poison on Earth Day.
So turn my termostat up to 90, turn on every light in the house, and kill a polar bear. Got it.
See, I just haven’t ever been to understand why the libs are afraid of global warming. I love it–I can always use a little bit more warmth.
Anyway, I’m definitely going to participate in this!
I will do both at the same time—I will defecate on my lawn.
Hmm…I’m in class until 8:20. So I’ll kick off “Earth Hour” by driving home!
I have only one way to describe this whole “earth hour” business: eco-stupidity.
Why is shutting off a light at 8:30 pm so significant? Why that time exactly? Is turning off a light going to bring back a tree, a species, a glacier? Who are these people kidding?
I always take pains to turn off lights in a room that I’m not using. My husband and I even watch how much heat we use (it’s really cold here in VA!!!) and yet we don’t need any “official day” to celebrate what’s done every day anyways.
I think I’ll celebrate Human Achievement Hour by firing up my RX-8 and running its non-piston powered internal combustion engine at 9,000 rpm the whole time. Lights and stereo blazing, of course!
That ought to make the heads of the Global Warming AND Earth Hour crews explode, resulting in a huge total savings in CO2 output over the next decade!
Well, thanks to Obama, American Idol will be on tomorrow night at 8:30. Probably more important to most than this silly “statement” to most.
wighttrasch… LOL
I and my co-workers decided a few weeks ago to turn on all lights in our houses along with every TV. I will even have my oven on weather I am baking anything or not and my crewcab V8 GMC pickup will be idling in my driveway. If I can come up with any other ways to increase my power consumption during this hour.
I will be celebrating electricity in all her sizzling glory!
Well it looks like all lights will be blazing at my place tomorrow. I’m even going to BBQ some meat..on my charcoal pit.
self edit:
Opps!
BTW, they are talking about the 28th, not tomorrow.
This is great. It exposes the Earth Hour for the silliness it is. Mocking is the best form of defense. Way to go Michelle Minton.
Think I’ll leave all the lights and tv’s on in the house, start my Peterbilt and let it idle, then go out to my parents house to fire off a few rounds.
It never ceases to amaze me that Liberals naturally choose to TAX something to decrease its use… Don’t want legal guns and ammunition around, issue some taxes. Don’t like smoking then tax cigarettes. Don’t like gasoline use, just tax it heavily. Don’t like coal-fired electricity, well just tax it…
But when the economy of the country is suffering, and we all want it to improve, what are they doing in State and City governments around the country? Increasing TAXES! Federal Government? Increasing TAXES!
Net result? Instant reduction of any sort of growth in any sector of the economy, except perhaps prostitution (untaxed) and drug use (also untaxed).
Stupid liberals! Just wait until the Earth Day/Hour folks realize they COULD call for a 100% tax on energy usage during their flippin’ Earth Day, thus penalizing anyone who willingly disagrees with their mantra!
Oh Mount Redoubt finally erupted, spewing metric tons of various gasses into the atmosphere, including a bunch of CO2! Tax it now!
Or leaving them on is my vote for the enviro-wackos to Die! Die ! Die! With festering pustules, die! Other than that, I have no strong feelings.
I think it’s great! If the time is 8:30 PM eastern then if we coordinate it here on the west coast to be at 5:30 PM we can ALL stop driving, turn off our Mother-earth-choking cars, and clog the freeways. Of course they don’t turn off the metering or traffic signals. What a great way to celebrate saving our Mother!
I am gonna turn on EVERY light, television, dishwasher, oven, microwave, washer and dryer, outdoor lights, computer… that I have.
If I blow a fuse, I will consider it a victory!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING!
these same enviro nitwits bribed their senator from california to say she won’t support eco friendly solar power in the mohave desert. can’t put wind turbines off massachusetts or off california, so let’s put them in the midwest where those people are too stupid to care, and we can’t put solar plants in the solar capital of the u.s. is there any power source that the left supports in their back yards, if so what? i guess it’s back to candles.
WELL.
I for one find it tremendously heartwarming and considerate that they allow us all the opportunity to practice for the day, after the radicals are in total control, when ALL the lights will be out ALL the time.
I just don’t understand why all of you have such a huge problem with it.
Practice, people, PRACTICE!
I plan, of course, to celebrate by consuming that pinacle of human achievement: Beer. It is the invention of beer, afterall, that led to the advancement of human society.
ThunderHawkk,
There is global warming. In fact, the earth has been warming, and at approximately the same rate, since the end of the little ice age in the 16th to mid 19th century. What does not exist is anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
I am one of the 30,000 + “scientists” who signed the petition asking the US government to reject the Kyoto agreement. I have an advanced degree in mechanical engineering and signed as having some expertise in nuclear engineering (having worked in that field for over 25 years).
If you listen carefully to what Al Gore states, he has learned to parse what he says with Clintonian precision. There is abundant evidence of global warming, there is no credible evidence to indicate that human activity has caused it.
CWinNT, Thanks for calrifying. I would love to see the computer models from the scientists who lived 250,000 years ago (sarc) and show that data to the Goracle. I plan to turn every light on for a bit at 8:30, blare my stereo, and run both cars to show my appreciation to man’s ingenuity. All the while, understanding that our earth has its own timetable for rejuvination that we neither dominate nor can we change it. The only way we change things globally is through catastrophe (nuclear war) and even then, only for a short time (geologically speaking). The planet drives its own car, we’re just passengers in the kiddie seat pretending to drive.
Dexter Alarius,
From Dave Barry: Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza.”
Thought you might appreciate knowing there are other minds that think like you do.
Don’t forget to do it again on Saturday, the 28th. You know, when they’re actually doing this thing as opposed to tomorrow which is just another day.
Just trying to help.
I always turn off my lights at about midnight until 6 in the morning. Shouldn’t that earn me some carbon credits?
The last time there was one of these things some friends of mine who are avid liberals called me out of the blue and invited us to go out to dinner with them, which we did. Only later did did I realize it was a Lights Off day. I guess they couldn’t stand the thought of 1 hour without modern conveniences but their guilt ridden consciences couldn’t allow them to not participate in this farce. So in their minds by going out to dinner and leaving all the lights off they made a difference.
Scary to know there are millions of people that think like that. This is why we are so screwed.
On March 28, Pelosi will no doubt be hosting a private party of elites in the Bay Area after jetting across country on a military USAF G5. Obama will most likely at some posh political event after traveling there on Air Force One accompanied by all of the support that goes with it.
But the faithful will turn out their lights and huddle in the dark, knowing they are saving the planet.
But rest assured huddled masses, your leader is with you in spirit.
Better to light a candle, than to curse the darkness.
Perfect time to put the electric oven on “self clean”, and crank up the a/c to see if I really can make it snow in my house. Oh, and rent some big-ass halogen lights for spending the evening on my patio celebrating human achievement.
***
Meanwhile our super brilliant Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is busily cutting deals with HAMAS, the radical Afghanistan Taliban Jihadis, and others trading away women’s rights for Sharia “law” punishments.
***
Human Achievements there will last a lot longer than an hour–and will hurt a lot more.
***
My 30 year old always on gaslight will look great during the energy saving “human achievements” festivities. It will also help light up my house when the windmill and other green energy sources fail.
***
John Bibb
***
Wheel goes with pizza when it is being DELIVERED. Call your local pie place now to order Home Delivery to use up even MORE Carbon Credits.
Meanwhile, in PSRK, we are breathlessly awaiting the announcement by Someone of His Control over His Creation….
PSRK = Peoples’ Republik of Kalifornia
While you celebrate human achievement, you should remember that religious conservatives apposed most it. The Pope threatened to kill Galileo, and the DAR tried to keep Einstein out of the US. Savonarola destroyed much of the secular art and literature in Florence, and the Muslims destroyed the library of Alexandria (not all religious conservatives are Christian). Then there’s Darwin, `nuff said.
Gee, and here I thought you were going to say they opposed it.
There’s a saying in South Africa:
‘A mine is a terrible thing to waste’
Utter revisionist nonsense.
You left out the Girl Scouts. They start out the year selling us cookies. We get hooked and then they just stop selling them. They just stop!
wighttrasch:
I am here. Actually, LGM’s makes a point, religious fundamentalists have indeed had a hand in obstructing scientific progress in the past and today. Here’s the trick though, it should only infuriate those conservatives that consider themselves to be the fundamentalists LGM is describing. While there may be some here, many conservatives aren’t of the type he describes.
We conservatives is against gud speling and gramar to.
zero–got it.
NOOOOOObody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Our weapon is surprise. That’s all. Just ‘surprise’.
wighttrasch:
No, no, not the comfy chair!
lgm,
Ever heard of Thomas Aquinas or Roger Bacon? Thomas Aquinas was a monk (someone who devoted his life in service to God – kind of a fundamental lifestyle choice). To quote Aquinas: “God cannot make the sum of internal angles of a triangle add up to more than two right angles”.
Roger Bacon was an English cleric. How about the support of early universities by the Catholic church? And, what about Darwin? His wife was very devout, Darwin took great care to ensure that his writings did not insult his wife’s deeply held religious beliefs, in order to maintain marital bliss in the house.
For every instance you can point out of religious fundamentalists opposing science, you can find many more where devout people furthered scientific study.
That’s why all the enlightened will be sitting shivering in the dark for an hour.
Those may have been ‘fundamental’, but they were not ‘religious’.
G-d bestowed talents on some, and they succeeded despite Satan’s attacks.
jd i’m with you, it’s a plot. just like the grocery stores only carrying peppermint ice cream in december when you can get spumoni year round. but having a large spread out family, i get girl scout cookie orders from 4 states at 4 different times.
CWinNY:
Yes, but you can’t make the claim that it was their devout religious beliefs that furthered their scientific studies anymore than you could make the claim that because Darwin liked strawberries, (I don’t know that he did, it’s just an example) liking strawberries furthers scientific study.
They were skilled scientists that happened to be religious, there is no correlation.
In fact, you could even make the argument that Darwin’s devout wife and his own initial beliefs held him back in some ways.
wighttrasch:
This is subjective and based only on what you (and likely others) define as “religious.” The fundamentalists in question would indeed have a very different opinion.
And they would be lying.
Just like their father, Satan the Devil.
Ever wonder why Europe became a military power from about the 15 century on (until the 21st century), while the Muslim world failed to hold its advances into Europe (Spain and up to the walls of Vienna). The answer can be found in the following statement from the book “Science Goes to War”: At the very moment Aquinas was telling his fellow Europeans how faith and reason could coexist, his Iranian counterpart, Ghazzali, concluded that the treasure of ancient Greek texts represented social dynamite. The study of science and philosophy, he wrote, was harmful because it would shake man’s faith in God and undermine the Muslim religion. The ruling caliph of Baghdad, ordered the burning of all manuscripts in the city’s great library.
Thus, while Europeans surged forward in a scientific explosion that allowed military advances, the Muslim world stayed mired in the 15th century, and a society that had originally been more advanced than their European counterparts lagged behind and has yet to catch up.
wighttrasch:
Heh.
I have to appreciate the “matter of fact” certainty with which you make that statement. *smile*
CWinNY:
Yes. Exactly, a religious man saw that strict fundamentalism was an anathema to scientific progress. This would still be true whether or not a religious man discovered that point or a non-religious man did so.
zeroangel,
I’m not saying that their devout religious beliefs either aided or retarded their scientific studies. I’m just saying that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I know several PhDs whose education has led them to a stronger belief in a higher intelligence. On a previous thread you stated that your undergraduate studies in math and statistics had led you to atheism. I find that particularly ironic, because it was my studies in math and statistics, that led me to the opposite conclusion. There are just too many coincidences that need to exist for life to flourish on this planet for it all to be just a cosmic roll of the dice.
There is nothing in the Bible which forbids science or advances in knowledge, only the application or misuse knowledge.
CWinNY:
I know what you are saying, but you seemed to be responding to LGM, who made a totally accurate statement. Fundamentalists HAVE retarded scientific progress.
I am really not certain I want to get into the atheism thing again. I have said before that I will only bring it up if someone repeats the “atheists are evil” mantra.
However, I guess the one question that does come to my mind is: are you a Christian because of your perception of “coincidences” or are you a Deist?
b-cat:
That may be true but there are parts of the Bible (and countless other holy texts) that are just scientifically wrong. If you take them literally (as fundamentalits do) then you end up ignoring or perverting science to shoe-horn it into scripture.
One of the human inventions that I use a lot is the toilet flush. I will definitely use it rather than suffer the smell. (satire)
Minor point, almost all of the people you mentioned were religous.
What people who advance run up against are the orthodoxy of the day. Alot of time those people are religous but not always.Try presenting proof that global warming is a myth to the athetist orthodxy of today and see what happens. LGM in railing against the religous is missing the point.
I also will start all electrical appliances and gadgets tomorrow!
Zeroangel,
While I sometimes sway toward Deism, I have concluded that Jesus Christ did exist. In fact, there are more documents, written within a few years of his life from a wider variety of writers (Roman historians, Josephus: a Jewish, non-follower of Christ, historian, and of course all the gospel writers) than there are documents of Alexander the Great (only five written documents, the earliest written about 123 years after Alexander’s demise). There are only two written histories of Hannibal, the Carthaginian general – he of crossing the Alps fame, written hundreds of years after Hannibal’s death, and widely divergent. So, it seems to me that there are more believers of the existence of Alexander and/or Hannibal with less credible evidence than there are of Jesus Christ.
So, Jesus existed. Now, if you study the gospels you have to conclude that something very drastic had to have occurred for a bunch of skeptical followers to all of a sudden become fearless and outspoken.
What I consider to be the objective examination (by me) of evidence has convinced me that there is a God, and that he communicated with man, and the main and most important part of that communication was through Jesus Christ.
Proverbs 30:18-19
OPPS make that the 28th
sonofdy:
Well, you could make the case that Einstein was a kind of pantheist or maybe even some kind of abstract deist; you could also make a convincing case that he was an atheist.
Darwin certainly (at the least) lost his faith that Jesus was the son of God as a result of his studies.
Ummm, what? athetist orthodoxy? Isn’t that some kind of oxymoron? There is no atheist dogma by very definition. Personally, I am not swayed by the prognostications of doom by the global warming crowd.
I know there is a spritual world because I have SEEN part of it. Its just like this one in the way that part is good, part is bad.
Any group can have an orthodoxy. Its not just a religous concept.
They were neither religious nor fundamentalists, they were zealots.
LGM, your problematic thinking patterns are showing again.
CWinNY:
Well, I would say Deism makes sense if you think coincidences are proof of a higher being. It’s one thing to say “there are too many coincidences so there must be a higher being of some kind.” It’s quite another to say the same thing and then go on to conclude Jesus is the son of God.
Furthermore, there isn’t anything terribly bizarre about making the claim that Jesus existed.
This is where I must take issue. There are countless instances throughout history of initially skeptical folks becoming incredibly fearless and outspoken. In modern times cults are very effective. I don’t think I need to cite examples. The point is, this itself is not proof of anything.
sonofdy:
I stand corrected. Though I still take issue with the idea or indication that being an atheist means you must believe in global warming. It’s a non sequitor.
If that was not what you meant though, I apologize.
I meant the orthodoxy, not every single one of you hell bound degenerates!!!
LOL just teasing!!! As soon as it was decleared “settled science” it became the orthodoxy. And that is hard to break.
sonofdy:
A minor point of my own, and I have mentioned this before:
There is some kind of general feeling that atheism = liberalism and vice versa. This is another non-sequitor but I believe there is reason for it. the reason (as far as I can tell) is that “conservative” atheists are afraid to “come out” for fear of alienating friends and family.
NP, I hear ya man.
I know thats not always the case.
That’s not what he said:
LGM is trying to say that scientific progress is incompatible with religion, which is fundamentally wrong. Most of the greatest scientific achievements were by religious people. Several, such as Copernicus and Gregor Mendel, were clergymen. These people viewed their work as revealing the beauty and complexity of God’s creation.
And, you’d better read the truth (rather than the myths) about what transpired between the Church and Galileo before making absurd statements.
Zeroangel,
There certainly is an atheistic orthodoxy. Since Darwin has been brought up, let’s start there. There are several problems with the theory of evolution (Haldane’s dilemma, simultaneous development, irreducible complexity, and of course the biggest problem – how did life get started). Darwin himself thought that the fossil record would further advance his theory – it really hasn’t closed some of the major holes. He also thought that the first life form was a simple one-celled organism. There is no such thing. Darwin had an 1850s understanding of one celled life and believed that some natural phenomenon could “jump-start” it. Let me give you an analogy that a PhD microbiologist gave to me: believing that lightning could create a single celled living organism is like believing that a tornado could rip through a junkyard, and from disparate parts create a fully functional automobile in its wake.
What does this have to do with atheistic orthodoxy? Well, most atheists believe the theory of evolution to be complete and the final say on how it all got started. They even believe in circular logic: there is no God, we exist, therefore the theory of evolution must be correct, even though they have no proof of the beginnings of life.
Dexter:
I think I cleared up your concerns in #43. LGM may indeed be trying to raise certain people’s ire by using the word “conservative.”
As for your points re. clergyman / scientists, see #51.
While it is entirely possible to mold one’s religious beliefs into a desire to learn about the world your particular deity or deities created; scientific progress IS incompatible with literal readings of ancient texts.
I think I’d have to disagree with the sweeping finality of that point.
The ‘scientific consensus’ didn’t used to believe that there was a single point in time that the universe came into existence. Now they do (Big Bang = Creation).
Science is now saying that all of humankind may be descended from a single woman (mitochondrial Eve).
It’s starting to look like science is moving more toward proving the Bible, rather than contradicting it.
CWinNY:
Yes, I am not going to go down this path yet again. No one disputes that Darwin didn’t get all the facts right or that we can’t yet explain EVERYTHING.
In any case, what is your counter-theory to evolution? That “god” created the world in seven days? Or that “god” “guided” evolution? The former is absurd, the second is not incompatible with the theory of evolution in the same way that “fine-tuning” arguments a la anthropic principle are not incompatible with physics.
Ref. single cells, you are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution, something that is still an ongoing area of study.
Atheists don’t believe god (or any gods) exist because I have never seen any evidence for it. It IS that simple. Further, I don’t believe anything in science is ever “complete and final,” it is always ongoing study.
Dexter:
So, if you literally believe that the Earth was created in seven days is that compatible or incompatible with science?
I think the bible refered to 7 days when it should have refered to 7 time periods. Which would make more sense. You have to remember who wrote the bible and how little they understood the concept of time. These guys lived in tents and caves. Evolution and biblican creationism may have more in common than people think.
HERETIC!!!
Al gore said…
sonofdy:
Yes, you can mold scripture to what we know to be true, I have no problem with that, it isn’t a “literal reading” and it isn’t “fundamentalist.”
Thank you.
Since it’s supposed to occur at local time, the first place to vote will be at the International Date Line. Since virtually no one lives there, no lights will be switched off. I can see the headline:
“Based on early poll results, Earth projected to lose in a landslide.”
NeroBama-esque
Don’t make me get the soft cushion…
wighttrasch:
Honestly, at this point please just beat me to death with a morningstar.
I am getting awfully tired of getting accused of being a troll and a popinjay (dexter / CWinNY, you haven’t done so here, but someone will soon enough) just because I indulge people when they want to argue with me about my atheism. The problem is, I can’t help but get sucked into the conversations because I sincerely want to correct people that may have incorrect understandings about certain things in science or atheism.
I think it should be trivial to point out; atheism absolutely isn’t incompatible with science. Indeed, since atheism is simply the lack of belief in something it isn’t incompatible with ANYTHING!
oh, okay. Then I shall turn you on the rack.
Zeroangel,
Just came back to this – had to leave for a while to accept a job offer. I will be a nuclear remediation engineer – time to get some vitamin R again (interestingly, when the Nautilus was launched one of the concerns was that the sailors would be exposed to less radiation than otherwise and it was unknown whether this would be a health issue).
Anyhow, I am not a biblical literalist. The same science that is used to determine how quickly fuel cells will cool (rad decay) can determine that life on this earth is millions of years old.
I am all for teaching evolution and intelligent design in schools, but not creationism. Just as there are big holes in the theory of evolution, there are bigger holes in Genesis. I would love for kids to be exposed to the same kind of debates on life as we have had – give the facts and let them decide. I would also like to see a more evenhanded approach to AGW – not the orthodoxy that is shoved down kids throats now.
First, I wasn’t there (neither were you) so we don’t know.
If by “days” you mean “rotations of the Earth” or “24 hours in our current timekeeping system”, I would say that is highly unlikely. However, I was taught that in God’s time, “days” could be millions or billions of years. I prefer to think “stages” when I read that passage.
So, would it be incompatible with science to believe that there were 7 stages in the development of the Universe? No, I don’t think so.
1. Big Bang
2. Matter coalesces into stars/galaxies
3. Planets form — including Earth
4. Earth cools, water forms
5. Simple life forms
6. Plants/animals
7. Humans
I think you get too wrapped up with the word ‘literal’. Ancient texts were written in the language of the times using idioms and examples that could be understood when it was written. The gist of a passage can be true without parsing the individual words translators used.
Just as an example, imagine you were to be teleported back 5000 years. How would you describe to someone our conversation on this blog? Or an airliner? Or, an M1A1 Abrams Tank? You would have to put it in terms they would understand.
Don’t listen to the troll.
I see your game, Trebek.
CWinNY:
Congratulations on your new job!
You say you want “Intelligent Design” in schools. I am completely fine with that as long as it is in philosophy class and not science class.
I think it should be crystal clear it is not science. What is the hypothesis? What is the nature of this designer? How would you test for or verify the presence of this “designer?”
The ways in which it is not a scientific “theory” are innumerable.
It is religion, meta-physics, and belongs in philosophy.
Zeroangel,
It is my opinion that atheism requires a belief in preposterous, unverifiable miracles – the same as a belief in God requires.
Yes, abiogenesis is an ongoing course of study. But without the first single cell, you have no evolution, unless you think the first living organism was mutlti-celled.
Dexter:
See my reply to sonofdy in #85.
Until that multi-celled thing can be taken home from the hospital, then it’s not a baby…
oh, sorry–what was this thread again?
CwinNY:
The difference is that atheists think these “miracles” can and will eventually be explained by natural, rational means. We don’t add another entity as a “catch all.”
Ref. abiogensis, I am not disputing that.
chap is just full of envy
wighttrasch:
It’s about challenging Zulu-Alpha on his lack of faith because we don’t like him sprouting off about this kind of stuff.