Day One-ish of the Big Silly Jesus Circus: Lies About Dinosaurs

Where's the saddle?

Where's the saddle?

I just got back from Dr. Sharp’s Truth About Dinosaurs seminar at the Theibaud, and I’m here to report my experience.

For those not in the know: Dr. Sharp is probably the most shameless and malicious liar I’ve had the misfortune to see in person. I credit him for my eventually conversion into a pinko atheist activist, way back in middle school. He is a little league young earth creationist, and while he’s in cahoots with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis fame, his piddly museum and presentations get nowhere near the fame and infamy Ken enjoys. Which is a shame, in a way, because he’s got his own style and quirks that could really propel him to the top of creationism’s elite. Yet for some reason, he languishes in obscurity.

Anyhoo, he’s back in town for four days. The presentations started yesterday, but I was too busy to go. There was no way, however, that I was going to miss the Truth About Dinosaurs seminar. So I loaded up my camera, my iPhone, and my sketchbook and hauled.

This was “Family Night,” the most hyped presentation of the whole event, but I was still floored by the size of the crowd. It was standing room only. I have never seen the Thiebaud so crowded, ever. I ate my free hotdog, and went inside.

The stage was filled with replica fossils. They were mostly dinosaurs and Mesozoic reptiles, with a few trilobites, a Bison latifrons, and inaccurate old hominid skulls such as Piltdown Man (chosen to show how science GETS THINGS WRONG!!!!111!!!) Unfortunately, my camera battery went from two bars to one, and it stopped working. Damn! Luckily I still had my iPhone…which takes crap pictures and was also low on juice. (I know what you’re thinking, but Sharp had technical difficulties too—God hates both of us!)

I snagged a seat not far from the front. Musicians from the church were set up amongst the fossils. The show started off with a prayer, and then…Christian rock.

Christian rock…why did it have to be Christian rock? I imagine it serves as a filter, driving away those souls who have already been irredeemably tainted by the Satanic force of good taste in music. Time became meaningless in this unprovoked assault on the ears. At least back in 2000, Dr. Sharp just stuck with good ole “Amazing Grace.”

Finally, nearly an hour after the doors were opened, Dr. Sharp got on stage, and 40 some minutes worth of bullhockey started spewing from his lips. I started taking notes.

His central theses are as follows:

  1. If science is to be believed, and death was in the world before humans (Adam) existed, then humans were not responsible for the Fall, and thus Christ’s sacrifice is meaningless and the whole thing is kind of stupid.
  2. “Liberal social engineers” and “the uncircumcised philistines of Hollywood” (his words exactly) deliberately use dinosaurs as candy to lead children away from Christ into the windowless van of secular humanism.
  3. Do not trust scientists. He explicitly said this. “Never, ever take a scientist’s word, no matter how many degrees or studies he has, over the word of God.” People wonder why scientists don’t give creationists equal time or waste time arguing with them. Gee, maybe it’s because you’re arguing in bad faith?

Apparently, what got Sharp into dinosaurs was the same thing that got me into dinosaurs: Jurassic Park. Big Hollywood, by the way, counts as “science” in Sharp’s world. The way he spits out the name “Spielberg” makes me suspect that he’s one of those guys who thought “the Passion” was an important movie, if you know what I mean. Unfounded assumption on my part, moving on. He ragged on how the dinosaurs were portrayed in the film, with such laughable concepts as a fast T-Rex and super smart Velociraptors.

Keep in mind, this guy thinks T-Rex ate coconuts.

Pay no attention to my left.

Pay no attention to my left

He moved on to the T-Rex skull on the stage, and went into the scavenger/hunter debate. The implication, of course, is that those dumb scientists can’t get their story straight! He said its brain was the size of a walnut; it’s actually bigger than a human’s, but whatever. Also, since T-Rex was constantly loosing teeth, it couldn’t tear out chunks of flesh; unlike the teeth of a shark, which are WAIT A MINUTE…

For the record...

The biggest facepalm of the entire event, however, was when he said that T-rex couldn’t see well because its eyes were on the side of its head. No. T-rex is renowned for having forward pointing eyes. Every single children’s book in the world will tell you that T-Rex’s eyes faced forward, providing stereoscopic vision. Most importantly, he says this WHILE STANDING NEXT TO A T-REX SKULL, WHERE YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE EYES FACE FORWARD. I let slip an audible note of frustration. Inside my brain, I was screaming. But hey, when you have the Bible, who needs A T-REX SKULL IN FRONT OF YOUR VERY EYES AAAAAAAAAUGH

He goes into misinformation about fossilization, and misinformation about gigantism, and then claims that Noah fit everything on the Ark, including the 99.9% of extinct “kinds”, by taking babies instead of adults. You’d think the Bible would have mentioned that. It’s a nice flourish for sure. I have my suspicions that you couldn’t fit those animals even if they were all in Shrinky-Dink form. But what do I know?

Another good facepalm moment was when he assured us that yes, Virginia, dinosaurs really existed. He told of an encounter with a man who believed Satan planted fossils to trick us, along with the moon landing being hoaxed and the earth being flat. “If he’s that far gone to believe stuff like that, what can you do?”

Just a reminder, this guy thinks T-Rex ate coconuts.

Now, the important thing about creationism is faith, but a little evidence doesn’t hurt. Sharp has evidence, and some of it isn’t even from the Bible for all you doubting Thomases out there. How about Mary Schweitzer’s soft tissue? The actual scientists working on it may object, but whatever, scientists are dumb. How about a single piece of Cambodian temple art that depicts something that looks like a Stegosaurus but looks more like a chameleon? How about lake monsters like Nessie and Mokele-mbembe? And who can forget the coelacanth? It’s a living fossil, man.

He discussed dinosaurs appearing in the Bible. Behemoth was mentioned, which you can read about here. Unfortunately, he didn’t mention his “theory” that duckbill dinosaurs spat acid out of their head crests. I hope he didn’t pitch it, because that was my favorite from my middle school days. He also claimed dragons in the Bible were dinosaurs. What followed was an even weirder Hollywood bashing moment, where he blamed “Walt Disney and his ilk” for portraying the dragon as a silly mythical creature. Riiiiight. I have no idea where the hell that came from.

It was time to wrap things up, so he asked for three questions from the audience. Two kids asked their questions, and a suspiciously enthusiastic gentleman asked “Where can I get a good resource to train my kids properly?” You’d think the Bible would suffice, but Sharp’s got a book that’s even better, and wouldn’t you know it? It’s freshly printed and ready to be ordered! The night was weird enough, I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy in the audience was a paid shill. You had to have listened to both of them, it sounded way too fake.

I shuffled out. I’ve got two more days of this guy to last through.

This guy who thinks T-Rex ate coconuts.


43 Responses to “Day One-ish of the Big Silly Jesus Circus: Lies About Dinosaurs”

  1. 1 Jim
    March 16, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Oh, WOW! I didn’t attend because I thought that my late start would make me miss nearly everything. It would have been utterly ok to have missed the ‘music’. The sounds which are considered to be modern Christian music are universally vilified in my family of musicians and (mostly) devout Christians. I am happy with the mixed-genre music (traditional, slave, Latin, African, major modern composers) that I get to sing in my church’s choir.

    Your report is superb. I am entertained in the same way that I enjoy watching slow-motion video of automobile crash tests. When I pause to think, there is a searing pain caused by the unavoidable irritant of non-reality-based-, false-facts-loaded-, and superstition-filled- Creationist propaganda spectaculars.

    That Creationists are utterly unscientific is also (apart from the corrupted content) illustrated by their commonly-employed spectaculars. Scientists (for those readers who can appreciate this distinction) do not have to stage pep rallys to solidify their credibility or convince their audiences. They present the facts (The facts, ma’am, just the facts. – Joe Friday, ‘Dragnet’) and let the facts do all the talking.

    Scientists are criticized for NOT offering more popularized descriptions of their work. That is bogus, because there certainly are excellent periodicals, blogs, etc. for interested laymen. Even popular scientific literature is light-years ahead of the Creationist offerings – offerings which have accomplished NOTHING of scientific value, not even lighting a candle of confirmed explanation or making a tiny prediction – that denigrate the huge contributions of science to our personal lives, our society, and the world.

  2. 2 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Good advice for Christians in this discussion.


    • March 16, 2010 at 2:09 pm


      To my knowledge, Sharp is not Calvinistic in his thinking. He’d think you were as bad as the Flat Earth creationist.

      Strangely, though, he was hawking Intelligent Design merch and other “compromised” wares. Hooray for diversity, I guess.

  3. 4 Duane Graham
    March 16, 2010 at 6:39 pm


    His use of the phrase, “the uncircumcised philistines of Hollywood,” highlights the fascination with foreskin found throughout the Bible, from nearly the beginning to nearly the end. When one thinks about it, it is really a strange phenomenon, even stranger than the need for fundamentalists to validate their “faith” for the rest of us through bogus science.


  4. March 16, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    Hmm, well Kaje, you gave an entertaining tirade — if one is already in agreement with you. Let’s see now. You called Sharp a liar, but you never did actually cite any time when you actually thought that he’d actually lied — just where you thought that he was mistaken. Oh yeah, at the end you sorta kinda insinuated that the voice from the audience was a “plant.” Was that the lie? And oh yeah — and did he actually ever say “t-rex ate cocconuts?” If that was just your idea of being cute, then put it in your scrapbook.

    Look amateur, you’re right about one thing — Dr. Sharp is an understated presence in the creationist community. But you pointed out he has some high connections within the movement. You also pointed out he’s got what it takes to ommunicate to an audience and to persist in a cause in which he believes with all his heart.

    ‘Tell ya what big guy. Here’s a challenge to put it where it counts for something. You’ll just make fun and try to brush this off — but I’ll do it just for kicks anyway.
    I’ll debate any evo-believer in your locale on a — specific topic question — within his/her own area of expertise. No Christian Rock music — just science. That’s the deal. If you can get someone — even you — I’ll run up and do this in front of a creation-hostile audience.

    And might try putting your critical thinking skills to work just for a minute on your own guys’ theories and see if they can take. C’mon, why not? Think about it. It might even keep ya outta Hell. Yeah — it’s that important. Sincerely yours, Charles Jackson

    • March 17, 2010 at 6:06 am

      Either Sharp is a liar or deluded. You know him better, which is it? Either way, whatever’s coming forth isn’t the truth.

      Sharp did say T-Rex, and everything else, ate plants before the fall. Does he have contentions with Ken Ham’s coconut-eating T-Rex? Does he think it ate pinecones instead? Is there debate over what sort of plant matter it consumed? That would be neat. Keep it up and you might approach something close to research and peer review.

      Up until then, all you’re stuck with is public debate. As for your challenge, despite the fact that your idiocy really shouldn’t be humored, (have you seen Dr. Sharp’s whalecow?) I’ll bite. I just happen to have a creation-hostile audience on call. Shoot me an email and we’ll set something up with them.

      BTW, are you in Lamar right now? I’m coming back tomorrow at two if you want to discuss it further.

      See you then,

      Kaje (who, for the record, is not a guy)

  5. 7 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 17, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Kaje, I think this would be a positive experience.

    Dr. Jackson seems to be sincere.

    Dr. Jackson: I have a Bible study group in my home on Wednesday evenings at 6:30. Kaje is a regular and let me tell ya buddy, having Kaje at the studies has definately made it interesting.

    Kaje is a friend. Kaje is warmer and fuzzier than the above post would make it seem.

    Kaje: I DON’T KNOW WHO TIPPED DR. JACKSON OFF ABOUT THIS POST, BUT IT WASN’T ME. But….it could be a great opportunity. You could talk to Dr. Jackson in a small group of caring friends, like our Bible Study Group.

    And, you know how I don’t think anything happens due to chance. Divine providence is always at work. Even if you never change your mind it may make you more tolerant of Christians who believe in a young earth and you might even like Dr. Jackson.

    • March 17, 2010 at 6:07 am

      “Kaje is warmer and fuzzier than the above post would make it seem. ”


      Anyway, he requested a “creation hostile” audience. Sorry, but I gotta respect the terms thrown down.

  6. 9 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 17, 2010 at 12:46 pm


    If anyone would like to read a really intelligent argument against naturalism this is good.

    Also, Kaje, at Jewell the the Biology department uses textbooks which has some fossils pictured as proof of evolution. These same fossils were debunked as frauds a long time ago. Why, if evolution is totally a proven fact, do colleges and universities have to use textbooks with this sort of misinformation?

    Bryan took the book with him to the Dr. Sallee and complained. Didn’t matter. They still use them and I’m sure many other schools do also.

    Evolution will never be a proven fact. They just keep saying that is is, again and again, to force it on everyone because Americans are too lazy and ignorant to look for themselves.

    Also, did you know about this book:http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=3681

    According to the authors rape is the effect of evolutionary biology. What a bunch of nonsense.

  7. 10 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 17, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Also, for Dr. Jackson:

    Having Kaje at our Bible Study group has made all of our faith in Jesus Christ stronger. God willing, everyone Kaje reaches out to with “evolutionary-atheists evangelism”, will be blessed in the same way.

  8. March 17, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    Well Kaje lady. You certainly got nice reviews as being “warm and fuzzy,” so I’m even more encouraged. Even if you’re not as cuddly as Calvin says you are — hey, it at least sounds like you’re up for a fair fight on the topic. That is excellent .
    You can go to the website at http://www.PointsofOrigins.com and connect with me on the specifics of a debate or a speaking event. Would you allow some creation-friendly members in the audience if I swore them to silence for the event? OK, let’s get it on. Take care and have fun. And I wouldn’t mind speaking to a Bible Study either … maybe they would like to join us. No, I am not in Lamar … I’m in Oklahoma right now. It’ll hafta be another day but … let’s do it!
    Charles Jackson

    • March 18, 2010 at 4:45 am

      “Would you allow some creation-friendly members in the audience if I swore them to silence for the event?”

      Let the backpedaling commence. Were you not expecting me to call your bluff?

      Tomorrow evening is our meeting, so I will bring it up with the board then and see what their ideas are.

      You also may want to check with Dr. Sharp first. He offered a similar challenge to us after today’s presentation, although his idea was a straight out public affair. You might want to iron that out with him.

      Also, I have to know: do either you or Sharp espouse the “Parasaurolophus used its crest like a bombardier beetle” thing anymore? I know Sharp used to, but I didn’t see it in this year’s presentations. Was that simply too dumb?

  9. March 17, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    Hey BTW, who’s gonna debate with me and … what’s the topic gonna be? Let’s get real specific here … that leaves less wiggle-room for the loser of the debate, to get out of it. Chas J

  10. March 17, 2010 at 8:48 pm


    When I eventually go to Hell (I’m in no hurry; baseball season is underway), I’ll keep an eye out for Charles Jackson. My old belief system (unfortunately the prophets were home schooled, so there’s no written text — just three cassette tapes and a few crude drawings) is fairly explicit about the dangers of picking a fight with paleontologists. And it’s not pretty. Let’s just say that Charlie is looking at taking the mother of all hot saunas. I’ve always thought this rather harsh, but what’s religion without strict penalties.

    Yes, I have stumbled away from Babaromsumdommy’s righteous path, and await my eternal punishment: Making Easy Bake cookies with Oral Roberts or dinner with the in-laws. Tough call.

    I don’t get out much, but I would make an exception to hear what kind of “science” Charles has up his sleeve. Thank Babaromsumdommy that no “Christian Rock” will accompany his metaphysical magic act. That would only add cheesy ambiance and blur the yellow line between pathos and bathos.

  11. March 19, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Who’s gonna step up and debate me on a specific topic within their expertise? Now look, don’t make this too easy or it’ll get boring for me. Get me a real heavyweight champion of Darwin to debate the issue. The more knowledgable and credentialed they are, the better. Juan asked what kind of science I would be using … so I assume this means you want a debate with all science content — good. I’m only an expert on science. Get yourself a minister if you want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I only debate in the sciences. Lucky you — any branch of science will do. I can afford to be flexible. I await your board’s pedaling. Chas

  12. March 19, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    Hey, can we videotape this, since you’ve sorta begun to indicate that you don’t want any witnesses from the opposing point of view (“Justin Case” eh)? I hear you gottan expert on deep granite zircon uranium decay. That would be a –fine– topic. We cold thoroughly handle any small topic like that. I so hate not having enough time to do a complete job on whatever facet of the urban myth of evolution. I’ve heard that evolutionists are only comfortable in the grey areas of uncertainties and generalities. Is that true? Oh please show me I heard wrong. How about this debate question … “Do zircons prove Earth is more than 6000 years old?” Oh that sounds like lots of fun … doesn’t it? Lemme know about the topic, the video, and the opponent, as soon as you can get over all this. Hey, I gottanutha idea. Since both Kaje & Juan are pretty confident, why don’t we set it up a two-on-one deal? I wouldn’t mind. Think about it. Clearly, Chas

    • March 19, 2010 at 5:10 pm

      “Hey, can we videotape this, since you’ve sorta begun to indicate that you don’t want any witnesses from the opposing point of view (“Justin Case” eh)?”

      I indicated that you were backing away from your original challenge and being dishonest. You wanted a “creation hostile” crowd, and I offered to give you one. Anyway, I just sent you an email about the board meeting.

  13. March 19, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    Kaje, before your group considers Charles Jackson’s “offer”, his comments in this forum should be examined judiciously. You have already identified his behavior correctly. Please bear with my lengthy comments, further critiquing Jackson’s comments.

    His condescension toward you, personally, is remarkable for a self-styled advocate of the Merciful and Loving God. That he would presume to judge your scientific capabilities, without so much as knowing you as well as I, or enough to know your gender, is arrogant and utterly at variance with the behavior of any person in my church.

    His profession is to conduct such activities as does Sharp or stage ‘debates’, etc. His protestations about some of your comments reveal that his limited professionalism is intimately connected to the manipulation of emotions. He seems to make a specific effort to appear offended that an “amateur” in a general-attendance audience could make a comment that would substantively affect him. If he is actually offended, he is unsuitable for mature dialogue with folks I know to be very capable of mature dialogue. If he is not offended, he is a propagandist and not a scientist. A so-called “debate” with such a person is an invitation to witness further moral and ethical contortions.

    Jackson’s offer (iterated here because he seems to have forgotten the specifics):
    “I’ll debate any evo-believer in your locale on a — specific topic question — within his/her own area of expertise. No Christian Rock music — just science. That’s the deal. If you can get someone — even you — I’ll run up and do this in front of a creation-hostile audience.”

    Jackson subsequently commented:
    “up for a fair fight” – Refer to my prior comment.
    “Would you allow some creation-friendly members in the audience” – Amazing. Zero integrity. You were kind to merely describe this as “backpedaling”.
    “OK, let’s get it on.” – Presuming to know the response is a propaganda technique.
    “And I wouldn’t mind speaking to a Bible Study either … maybe they would like to join us.” – He doubled-down on that bet! He “wouldn’t mind”?
    “Hey BTW, who’s gonna debate with me and … what’s the topic gonna be?” – This is a scant 40 minutes after his prior display of slithering. As noted before, this is either an example of emotional insecurity or manipulation.
    “Who’s gonna step up and debate me on a specific topic within their expertise?” – 45 hours since the prior wheedling request is an improvement. My 3rd-grade grandson has more patience.
    “so I assume this means you want a debate with all science content” – He has again presumed what he does not know. Juan expressed curiosity that would affect his decision to attend, not a negotiating point.
    “I’m only an expert on science” – No, Jackson is not that. Experts in science DO science more than they talk about it. In case I missed some salient item of Jackson’s professional resume (having read only what is publicized on his own website), then it will be of considerable interest to be informed of his peer-reviewed research.
    “Lucky you — any branch of science will do.” – This confirms my comments in private.
    “Hey, can we videotape this” – A whole 11 minutes after his prior comment. Professionals do not have such disorganized and undisciplined thoughts.
    “you’ve sorta begun to indicate that you don’t want any witnesses from the opposing point of view” – This is a cynical propagandistic manipulation. It is equivalent to writing “Accept the offer which I freely made, and I will spin your acceptance as a lack of confidence.” Where I came from, that would be like a gunfighter telling an opponent, “Unless you let me go back home and get some more guns from my Mommy, I’m going to cry and tell everyone you were mean to me.”
    “I hear you gottan expert on deep granite zircon uranium decay.” – Really? Where did he hear this? No one told ME (not that I am in any position to be told!).
    “We cold thoroughly handle any small topic like that. I so hate not having enough time…” – More of Jackson’s condescension and arrogance. A direct expression of his statement would be “These matters are trifles for me. You are so fortunate that I would agree to expound upon them in such a limited format.”
    “Lemme know about the topic, the video…” – Video? Was this part of the zircon item?
    “Since both Kaje & Juan are pretty confident…” – Jackson’s prior accusation was that failure to agree to modification of his offer is a demonstration of a lack of confidence. Either his disorganized thoughts or his manipulative, uncharitable, unloving, blasphemous apostate heart are to blame.

  14. March 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Whew, must’a touched a nerve. Well, I know you all can see that this upcoming event will be anything but boring. I promise a stimulating evening. What better purpose for a Freethought Society meeting … that to bring down a poser like me, eh? Why you’d be doing mankind a great service … or not. Please do not let any of this interplay on this blogsite be used as an excuse not to conduct the debate. In all honesty, you’d have to then look yourselves in the mirror everyday after and know … we are posers. Let’s keep stirring the intellectual honesty pot. And if the only way you’ll continue to move forward in all deliberateness in these plans, is to continue to say things about me that you do not know … I’m all for it. If the moment comes, we’ll all have an awakening, I’m sure. Get Jim in on the debate, if he has a stake in it. I do like Kaje’s suggestion of a prominent evolutionist to be brought in for the debate. But then, someone here will just say that we creationists like the credibility that gives us … sigh. Blessings, Charles

  15. March 20, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    And folks, let’s all just remember how this got started.
    You used the name of Jesus in “Big Silly Jesus Circus” and called my colleague Dr. Sharp a liar or deluded. I don’t see how moral high ground can be built upon such overtures. Can you? I’m just calling y’all on it is all. Let’s see if you can back it up. I’ll be on the road for a few days and I’ll catch up with your buzz about mid-week. I hope that everything can be settle and all arrangements can be made or at least agree upon at that time. Chas J

  16. March 20, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    Kaje – Episode II of Integrity Violations:

    “this upcoming event” – Jackson simply can’t relent from presumption. The language of scientists and Engineers is as well-supplied with appropriate qualifiers as their research is labeled with accurate error estimates. Jackson seems incapable of writing ‘contemplated event’ or ‘proposed event’.
    “I promise a stimulating evening.” – ‘Stimulating’ is a pretty vague term. His blog comments are ‘stimulating’, but that does not imply that they are redeeming or entertaining. I suspect that ‘stimulating’, as applied by Jackson, should be viewed as a pejorative description.
    “Please do not let any of this interplay on this blogsite be used as an excuse not to conduct the debate.” – This plea for leniency, from a person whose tactics are provocative, comes in response to one comment (from an outsider) that his responses here should be “examined judiciously” by your group. This is demonstrative of low confidence or mediocre manipulation. Perhaps he is not accustomed to being directly examined judiciously.
    “you’d have to then look yourselves in the mirror” – No one needs an excuse to dismiss the original or revised versions of Jackson’s “offer”. No offer was sought. Jackson has a well-funded organization, and it is fundamental that no ad hoc local group has any obligation to keep him supplied with publicity and fundraising materials. If your group wishes to reject the offer, Jackson has made a concerted effort to provide substantive reasons to do so.
    “continue to say things about me that you do not know” – To the extent that this is directed to my comments, I have commented only about what Jackson has voluntarily written and what it means. There are certainly other things which I do not know, and I have avoided them.
    “we’ll all have an awakening” – That would be a refreshing change. It has been noted here that Sharp’s presentation was stultifying. For example, in Q&A, he reiterated the entire Mount St. Helens fragment of the Mount St. Helens seminar.
    “Get Jim in on the debate, if he has a stake in it.” – I prefer to refer the Police to thugs, rather than submit myself to possible contamination. An analogous choice is most likely in this somewhat different situation. For the record, I have a “stake” in things of value – my faith, my education, my family, and my friends. I have no stake in something which is so external to my self. Jackson suggests that his own involvement is due to having a stake. That would be easy to accept.
    “someone here will just say that …” – Those creationists like the credibility that gives them. It is their primary means of perpetuating their activities, since scientific research, applied science, or any other productive application of a knowledge of nature is not done by them.
    “remember how this got started” – Jackson is either myopic or (avoiding the ‘L’ word) manipulative. If posting a blog, to which he responded, is ‘starting’ then what is the presentation of a public seminar, to which Kaje responded? The seminar was ordinal rank 1, the blog ordinal rank 2. Those folks who can count will grasp the significance of this.
    “You used the name of Jesus” – So what? Jesus can defend himself from the likes of Kaje. “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” {Matthew 26:53} Invoking the name of God to justify the denial of His Creation is blasphemy. Last time I checked, that was a guaranteed ticket for Jackson to stay warm for Eternity.

  17. 23 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 21, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    Okay, this debate hasn’t taken place yet and Dr. Jackson is kicking all of your behinds before Calvin and Luther can even get to them. HAHAHAHAAHAH!

    If you know that your Evolution supporting science guy can beat Dr. Jackson, then you should have Christians attend so that they have to sit and suffer through it. Surely you and all of your Freethinker friends would relish that?

    If you don’t allow Christians to watch the debate it is simply more proof for me and them that no true evidence exists to support the illogical belief in evolution and you can’t stand the thought of witnesses to the behind kicking that will occur.

    Belief in evolution equals epistemological feces.

  18. 25 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 21, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    Your ant sized reasoning makes Calvin and Luther laugh.

  19. 27 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 22, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Oh please, your eugenics laced doctrine of evil will stand or fall on the evidence.

    Calvin and Luther stand on the word of God:

    “Claiming to be wise, they became fools,” (Romans 1:22)

    • March 22, 2010 at 2:01 am

      Eugenics, eh? I take it you swallowed Sharp’s malarky hook, line and sinker?

      This is especially hilarious coming from the #1 Luther fangirl. Luther’s writings were just as, if not more so, influential in fueling the Holocaust. Regardless if Luther hated just the religion or the Jews themselves, Nazis and the German people assumed the latter.

      As previously stated, the fact that Nazis (and other authortarians) misinterepted and cherry picked an idea for their own ends, be it a science or a religion, has no bearing on the truth of that idea. There is another piece of Internet etiquette related to this called Godwin’s Law.

      As for 1,000 Ways to Die, I think I’ve seen every episode and am dumber for it…

  20. 29 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 22, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Anyway, shouldn’t you be watching the “1000 Ways to Die” marathon?

    I know Dad is.

  21. 30 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 22, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    What happened with Luther is consistent with the Christian worldview.

    Man fell, not a little fall, we fell so far from the way that we were originally created that even Luther, the great Christian reformer, cannot quit sinning.

    What Luther wrote about the Jews, was sinful.

    We know from the word of God that we will sin until the day that we die. We are sanctified by God (we become more able to fight our sinful nature), but we can NEVER completely get rid of our sinful nature.

    So, the sin that Luther committed is consistent with the Christian worldview.


    How is belief in evolution NOT consistent with the worldview of a eugenicist.

    How is belief in evolution by an atheist especially NOT cosistent worldview of a eugenicist.

    That is the question.

  22. 32 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 24, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    I have read them. And if I were a eugenicist, the theory of evolution could easily be used to jusify what I wanted to do.

  23. March 24, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    If I were a eugenicist, I would be able to exploit the statements of C&LWKYAB to justify what I wanted to do.

    If I were a scientist (as if that were a hypothetical), rationalization would be severely limited by overt mechanisms in the scientific method and in the practice of science.

    Self-justification and rationalization are universal. Only the artificial justifications vary. Where and when Darwin’s Theory of Evolution did not exist, folks easily found justification for eugenic and other crimes. It is the crime that is fundamental, not the camouflage which criminals deploy to deflect personal accountability.

    The fallacy, that a usurped justification of a concept may serve as basis for rejection of the concept (regardless of its inherent validity), is immensely dangerous. Slavers have justified their criminality by asserting that it is God’s Will for their slaves to be ‘saved’ by subjugation. This rationalization, like the use of Evolution as a rationalization, says much about the criminal, and the lesson too many misguided people take from it is that the excuse is also an evil. Indeed, many people have rejected (and continue to reject) Salvation because Christianity served well to perpetuate slavery.

  24. 34 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 25, 2010 at 3:33 am

    The only way to use the Bible to justify anything evil is to LLIE.

    You can take evolution and NOT LIE and use it to further evil intentions.

    Does that mean that everyone who believes in evolution is using their belief to further evil acts, no. It just mean that you can use the theory of evolution, and not tell one single lie about it, and use that belief to justify evil acts.

  25. March 25, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Folks, did anyone have the slightest void in their understanding of rationalization? If you did, C&LWKYAB has filled it. That was an excellent example of rationalization : an emotionally-motivated exploitation of cleverness (including a blatant use of the very-common circular reasoning) to protect that emotional position.

    It is not necessary to use lies about the Bible (which Bible? depends on ‘which Christianity’), regardless of the convenience and efficacy of lying (‘death panels’ was a good example). The monumental inconsistency of the hodge-podge of ‘scriptural’ writings – erratically preserved, intentionally modified, politically selected, artifically assembled, and consistently read with a myopia a conceals even the incorrectness of the term “Ten Commandments” – affords every opportunity for Calvinists, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Nazarenes, and hordes of other denominations to employ “The One True Gospel” like they employ salt. Just sprinkle it on anything ; it has to taste better.

  26. 36 Calvin and Luther Will Kick Your Atheist Behind
    March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    What your saying is just not so. You are believing what you are told and not looking for yourself. All you have to do is study church history and respected scholarship on the authenticity of the Bible, and you can easily, by using your God given brain, find the truth. It is sinful to not use your mind.

  27. March 26, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    Back from college lecture gigs now. ‘Sounds like in my absence you atheists have made your decision to completely backpedal all the way to no-deal, for reasons only the FSM himself knows for sure. Johnny (or Sarah, whatever your real name is) you have my email. If His Pasta-ness ever elects to put the starch back into your spines someday, then lemme know and we’ll start talking again about what Silly Freethought Circus you’d like to invite me to so you can actually have the chance to show the world what a creationist really is. Meanwhile, I’ll not likely have the time to check in on you again here. Saving the world from the likes of you is … a full-time job y’know. So I’m busy. But then, you will always know where to find me. “I’m always around.” Cheers, Chas

  28. April 2, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Bring it. Is any time in June good for you? Could it be the solstice celebration event of the non-believer community year, eh? Book the event with Bob@CreationTruth.com. You’ve waited too long to get a spot in May. See you at the wall. DrJ

  29. April 2, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Bring it. Book the event for June. You’ve waited too long to get a spot in May. See you at the wall. DrJ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Donate to the Kaje!

My Zazzle Store

My Spreadshirt Store

Help a broke blogger and buy some NSFW merch at my Spreadshirt store!


March 2010
« Feb   Apr »
Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

Tweetin’ twootin’:


%d bloggers like this: