"you should really check this out"; "suckered"; "humanist bias"; "ignorance"; "not understanding"....

Wow. Thats a lot of compelling evidence you just presented on behalf of old Luke the Liar. Its like I'm drowning in a sea of facts. Whatever will I do?

ABO says
True to form, ABO trashes the messenger but ignores the message. ABO, did you actually check out the biblical passages in the list and then conclude that they are “biased ramblings of a the humanist author” who, by the way, merely compiled them? If so, perhaps you can explain why Luke (8:26-27) reported one Gerasene demoniac while Matthew (8:28), recounting the same story, says there were two. Double vision? Didn’t have his glasses on? Whatever, only one account can be right. Or why 2 Samuel 10:18 says that King David attacked the Arameans and killed 700 charioteers while 1 Chronicles 19:18 says there were 7000 killed. The additional 6300 died later of their wounds? Maybe, but the bible doesn’t say so. Or why David buys the threshing floor of Araunah for 600 shekels of gold in 1 Chronicles 21:25, but pays only 50 shekels of silver in 2 Samuel 24:24? Currency exchange rates? Or how about the names of the 12 Apostles--- surely one would think the Bible would be unmistakably clear about this. But no, Matthew 10:2-4 identifies Thaddeus as one of them, while Luke 6:16 replaces Thaddeus with someone named Judas son of James. Same guy? Probably that’s been argued (just guessing), but the bible doesn’t say and so is still a conflicting account in a book held to be inerrant. These are only examples of biblical contradictions. There are many more.

Mike, you had me thinking about that too. It's like after the issues from the Hearing cooled down scientists lost interest in what's happening in Kansas, like professor Joe Meert and others who made the forum a highly scientific place to be. Without them the forum attracts some who want to talk religion (sometimes math) but science doesn't work here like it used to.

Ya I guess I can see that. Some one who stuffs all beliefs in the same basket other than his own could come to that conclusion.

I don't believe any religious beliefs about supernatural beings or events are true. I admit that, and in the past I've given reasons for believing this. One reason is that there are so many different religions, and no way of investigating which, if any, is true, because there is no evidence that can be brought to bear on the subject. You believe in all sorts of things that I think are preposterous - some of which are flat out contradicted by the evidence (6000 year old earth), and many of which are totally without evidential support and don't seem at all reasonable to me (believing that Jesus is the son of God will get you into heaven, but not believing will condemn you to everlasting torment and damnation.) Those, and many others, are bizarre beliefs, in my opinion. I certainly can't distinguish the "hoodoo voodoo" level in Catholicism from that in your religious belief system.

Many people have known that was your position for a long time, Jack. What is interesting is that you never stated that back during the "evolution wars", so far as anyone I know can tell.

Of course, I understand that if this had been commonly known, it would probably meant that KCFS would not have been as effective as it was.

This is relevant still, because your beliefs in this area affect how you see the evidence in the first place, whether it has to do with the origin of the universe or life, the mathematical order apparently inherent in the operations of the material universe, the fine tuning of the same, historical references, and many other subjects.

I don't see how this would make a difference to the effectiveness of KCFS. Please explain.

Matt. 8:28, Mark 5:1-2, Luke 8:26-27
A contradiction occurs only when one statement makes the other impossible.  If Mark or Luke said that only one demoniac came to Jesus while Matthew says that two came out, that would be a contradiction.  If there are two demoniacs, there is certainly at least one; therefore, there is no contradiction.
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matt ... s-gerasene

How many charioteers were killed, 700 or 7000?
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/josh ... 00-or-7000

David buys the threshing floor of Araunah for 600 shekels of gold in 1 Chronicles 21:25, but pays only 50 shekels of silver in 2 Samuel 24:24?
Did David pay 50 shekels of silver, or 600 shekels of gold (1 Chr. 21:25)? He paid the same amount, in later terms -- keep in mind that Chronicles was written in the Persian period, some 600 years after David. This is an intentional anachronism of the sort used by all ancient and modern historians intended to show a value in terms their readers could grasp.
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-2SAM.html

Jude, Thaddeus, or Lebbeus, son of Alpheus or Cleophas and Mary. He was a brother of James the Younger. He was one of the very little-known Apostles and lived in Galilee. Tradition says he preached in Assyria and Persia and died a martyr in Persia. http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/content/who-were-twelve

There may be some overlap here but I found these 134 bible contradictions. I thought they might help you in your quest for mutant supremacy.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

Norm.
O my. You would never do anything like that, would you?

This is good: the Bible is literally and inerrantly true, except when they use "an intentional anachronism of the sort used by all ancient and modern historians intended to show a value in terms their readers could grasp."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

1 Chronicles 21:25
So David gave Ornan 15 pounds of gold for that place.

So then the bible is literally and inerrantly true except where it is contradictory or ambiguous, in which case the contradiction and ambiguity is rationalized away, leaving the bible literally and inerrantly true? OK, now I think I got it. Sure can't argue with that kind of logic.

KCFS's political war against the Revised Standards was supposedly based on a goal of "defending" science and/or science education. That PR image could have been undermined significantly, if the specific worldviews of its more vocal members--including Jack's worldview, it seems pretty clear--had come under close public scrutiny, e.g. from the media or in a venue like the 2005 Science Standards Hearings.

Definitely could have raised a few questions in public, and certain raised questions in public can cause church-going voters to accidentally not vote your way.

FL

Wow, what a concept!

Exactly, FL. I am told that the leadership was very careful not to be specific about their worldviews.