223 thoughts on “Picking the “Science” They Like”

  1. I guess I missed it. I’ll confess. I’m a silent lurker who visits the site daily but has yet to comment. Thanks to all of you for keeping me sane while I work out my faith in the midst of orthodoxy, reformed thought, fundy stuff, and post-modern ramblings in my head. Truly, you all make my day complete. Thanks for the site, Darrell. Inspired.

    1. Andrew, I like the way you listed a number of the things you’re working through. You’re definitely not alone. My list doesn’t include fundy (although fundy-ish ideas are in the mix), and I substitute Lutheran for Reformed, but the orthodoxy and postmodernism are enough to raise difficult problems when they don’t play well together. Blessings.

    2. Dear Andrew P:

      We appear to have walked similar paths, although I ejected what little fundamentalism I imbibed long ago.

      Glad we on ‘speaking’ terms now! In the sacred Name of Jesus, ‘WELCOME!’

      Christian Socialist

  2. Other scientific “facts” loved by fundies:

    1) Some people become alcoholics the instant they take the first drink. (A chemical reaction in the brain, or some such.)

    2) Scientists have lowered microphones one mile below the earth’s surface and heard screaming of people in hell. (First of all, why the interest in what it sounds like down there, and secondly, what kind of mike could withstand those temps?)

    3) Scientists have accounted for Joshua’s day when the sun stood still and when Hezekiah prayed for the sun’s shadow to back up. They’re keeping it a secret though, so people won’t believe the Bible. Earth also escaped destruction from an asteroid because of the missing time. God is in control.

    I’ve also heard preachers (mis)use black holes (hell), earthquakes (hell getting bigger), volcanoes (hell getting a lot bigger), and falling stars (God knows them by name, attends the funeral. What’s a meteor?)

    In fairness, one of the most popular books defending evolution spends a whole chapter on the JEDP documentary hypothesis which even liberal Hebrew scholars dismiss. So, I guess this sword cuts both ways.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m getting my sermon ready for Sunday: “String Theory and the Virgin Birth”

    1. Those arguments are so ridiculous. Honestly, why would any rational person think those were true? Obviously you cannot measure “missing time” without a point of reference that is before the “missing time.”

      1. Hear hushai:

        You wrote: ‘those arguments are so ridiculous. Honestly, why would any rational person think those were true?’

        I reply: ‘A-HAAaa!’

        Christian Socialist

    2. Fundy Pastor, you lost me on your post. I can’t figure out if you’re making fun of fundies or making fun of the posters on this site, who are anti-fundy. Many or most of the posters on this site have thrown out common sense and biblical teachings as part of their core. You mentioned “becoming an alcoholic with one drink” as if you were making fun of that. Most of the posters on this site would agree with that and would scorn your for daring to make fun of that philosophy. Yet some of the other things on your list appear as if you’re making fun of fundies. Or, do you just like to take equal opportunity and make jokes about EVERYBODY?

      1. Dear Shandurlki:

        I’m no fundamentalist, but I would never describe myself as an anti-fundamentalist. I see myself as being ‘pro-the-fundamentalist’ while decidedly not fundamentalist. I think your post supports that reading.

        I for one make a point of never arguing with someone who quotes the Bible. Where they go AFTER quoting the Bible is another matter.

        Christian Socialist

      2. Well, we’re even. I can’t tell by your reply if you’re hoping I was making fun of fundies or if you’re defending fundies.

        For the record, I try not to make fun of regular posters on this site. Whether they realize it or not, they form a group therapy session that I regularly (daily) attend. Hope this clears things up.

    3. 1) This is the most solid of the three; I’ve heard of it happening (and in his latest nonfiction book, Steven King describes how it happened to him). All I can figure is there are people who are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, and this is just the top end of the spectrum.

      2) The “Well to Hell” HOAX. This was proven to be a hoax soon after it surfaced back in the Eighties, but by then it had a life of its own.

      3) The “Missing Day” discovered by NASA. This is a known Urban Legend, cataloged by Snopes among others. The Conspiracy Cover-Up Angle is an obvious elaboration, but the asteroid near-miss is a new one on me.

      1. My mom was an alcoholic from her first drink, so yes I do believe that happens to SOME people. My husband and I have been “socially” drinking for (him) 20, and (me) 11 years now with no problems. Growing up I always feared everything bc of my mom’s addictive nature. It went beyond drinking.. we were taught that if you gamble one time, then you will waste every cent of every paycheck on gambling, one cigarette and you will be a chain smoker dying of lung cancer in a few short years, etc.
        I am so glad to be free from the extremism.

        1. That is why it’s so important to listen to your gut or the still, small voice within. I started drinking occasionally several years ago, and I realized I do not like the way I feel after more than one glass of wine. My Christian neighbor, on the other hand, loved the feeling of getting drunk. She was convicted (without a MOg, priest, pastor, or other individual shaming her) to stop drinking cold turkey, because she knew if she had one drink, she’d have the goal of getting wasted.

          The everlasting list of “do this and don’t do that” can’t possibly apply to each individual. If you do have a list, apply it to yourself and let the Holy Spirit do His own work on others.

        2. The causes of alcoholism are still largely unknown, but are probably a mix of genetic and psychological factors. Groups like AA would say that a person who drinks once and becomes hooked was already an alcoholic, and will still be one even if they quit drinking. It’s also been noted that the affliction progresses even if someone isn’t drinking. That is, if an alcoholic were to quit for twenty years and then start drinking again, he would abuse it as severely as if he’d never stopped drinking. That’s not a Fundy belief but is pretty standard substance abuse counseling doctrine.

        3. Yeah. I don’t have a problem with the idea that some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but we were taught that EVERYONE who took that first sip was risking a possible, likely, or certain addiction. And you were expected to believe whoever was preaching at the moment, and not notice that they contradicted the last preacher you heard, nor that they all contradicted each other.

          Now that I have the occasional drink, I’ve observed that I am extremely unlikely to become an alcoholic because:
          1. After years of trying, I still haven’t found a drink I enjoy the taste of, (I’ve found a few mixed drinks I neither like nor dislike, everything else tastes bad) and
          2. I know exactly how much alcohol I can consume before I feel its effects, and always avoid going beyond that point because the few times I’ve gone beyond that point I found even the mildest feeling of intoxication unpleasant. Half a glass of wine or half a shot is my limit. A full glass or shot, and I begin to feel it, and the feeling gets worse from there. We’re not talking about getting smashedβ€”the most I ever had in one day was when someone accidentally put two shots of rum in my pina colada instead of one. Any addictive / compulsive tendencies I may have lie elsewhere.

        4. Great points, many of you. I too agree that all alcoholics are drunken slobs who have zero control of anything in their lives. They are total slaves to alcohol and can do nothing to control it. They are hopeless drunks. I’ve heard it been said by many fundies that alcoholics can “control themselves” and “pull themselves up and lead normal lives.” What a bunch of crap! Once a hopeless, drunken, worthless drunk…..always a hopeless, drunken slob! This idea that people can “reform” is such bs. That’s another reason I gave up Christianity. I’m not an alcoholic, but I don’t believe in this idea in “noble” drunk who can somehow “cure” the disease. That kind of backwoods, backwards thinking is laughable.

        5. I’ve never seen an AA group that met in an IFB church… or any other type of Baptist church for that matter…

        6. Elija Craig, great point! You’ve never seen an AA group in a fundie church because fundies are nutjobs. They believe that people can somehow “conquer” alcohol and “control themselves” and lead “normal” lives instead of living as the hopeless, drunken slobs that they really are. That is the biggest bunch of bs I’ve seen in a long time. Alcoholics and hopeless, beyond redemption, and have not one shred of an ounce of self-control or decency in their entire bodies. I wish fundies would realize this and quit trying to tell people that they can “control themselves” and live as “normal people.”

        7. Yeah, because AA totally believes alcholics can be responsible with alcohol. Step One of AA’s Twelve Steps:

          β€œ1.We admitted we were powerless over alcohol – that our lives had become unmanageable.”

    4. I once heard a preacher say that the reason the Bermuda Triangle had so many bizarre occurrences was because it was actually the entryway to Hell. He backed this up by saying the if you drilled a hole from the bottom of the Bermuda Triangle (where there are some Ocean Blue Holes where the depth has never been recorded) straight through the Earth you would come out in the Marianas Trench…the bottom of which has never been recorded either. His theory is the hole goes al the way through and Hell is in the middle and the bizarre occurrences are the result of demons coming and going

  3. Here’s a question for us to ponder, however: The charge Darrell has legitimatelylaid at the feet of Fundamentalism–that of playing fast and loose with “science” they like and ignoring research they don’t like–how does that charge not stick to Christianity in general? How do we Christians defend ourselves that we aren’t doing the exact same thing, albeit not as blatantly as what goes on in Fundyland?

    1. People in general misuse “science”, statistics, research, etc., for their own purposes. For example, is global warming real or not? Depends on who wants the grant money. Is the unemployment rate 7.8%, or not? Depends on who’s trying to get elected.

      Fallen man. All of us.

    2. It seems that a lot of confusion concerning science comes from news articles. The journalists don’t generally understand the research they are reporting on. The find one study that shows a mild correlation between “a” and “b” and they report that such and such a study has proven “a” causes “b.”

    3. I think the biggest problem with fundies and science is the tendency to find one random obscure “scientific” fact and tout it to justify some random rule while decrying the rest of science and scientist as godless and therefore unable to recognize truth. It’s much bigger than a misunderstanding or misuse of a study or scientific paper/fact. The general attitude of fundamentalists toward hard science is very negative…unless they can use some smidgen to make their rule seem more reasonable. And therein lies the problem. You can’t run around decrying science and scientists as rejecting God and thus incapable of recognizing truth (or at worst manipulating it to make God look bad) and then credibly turn to science to defend yourself.

      1. Fundies cherry-pick through scientific research just like they cherry-pick scriptures to support their rules.

        It’s more than ignorance and fear of hard (and soft!) science; it’s a mind-set.

    4. The fact that people are reference Snopes on here makes the site lose all credibility. Snopes is nothing but a left-wing propaganda machine that cares nothing about truth. They have an agenda to push and will not let truth even dare stand in their way in their promotion of said agenda.

      1. An anonymous internet commenter told me something without any proof whatsoever? I’m going to believe it immediately!

        More seriously, please show me an example where Snopes has declared something false that can be proven to be true. Please then present credible evidence that proves the event or belief is actually true. I will be much more inclined to accept your comment if you do this.

    1. So if I was growing , let’s say, marijuana, and I put some grunge music to it, let’s say, Alice in Chains, what would it do to the plant? make it more potent?

      1. Now that’s a serious paradox, because pot is EVIL, so you would expect that Good music (classical music) would *kill* a marijuana plant (you know because of the science of morals)… but if it makes it grow… oh man the paradox is just too much

  4. Ah yes, the EE-Vuls of Ungodly Rock Music, I remember those lecture well, or rather, that lecture, as it was always the same one every year. Now that I’m an adult I would why it’s only Baptist ministers who had record players that spun backwards, and do they make backward-CD players these days? ❓ Plus some songs seem to sound better that way.
    Here’s a good science project for young people, updating the classic one of hymns-vs-heavy metal being played to plants: try Christian rock vs bluegrass, Beatles vs rap, klezmer vs Miles Davis, ah the possibilities… 😎

    1. Those experiments crack me up. Kids put the speakers so close to the plants. Realistically, the experiment really is, “Do plants grow better in stable conditions, or earthquake conditions?”

      1. Hallelujah! Someone gets it! I had a kid do this experiment with rock versus classical music on fish for the science fair last year. It was quite an ordeal trying to get that kid to understand why the speakers had to be at a fixed distance away from the tank for both musical compositions in order to compare the two. Are you perhaps a science teacher?

  5. In Fundy elementary and Jr high I heard everything that dinosaurs on the ark they were just babies. The earth was at the most 7000 years old. Rock music producers were agents of the Soviet Union trying to usher in the down fall of the US. They beast was a five story computer in Luxembourg. Slaves and Indians deserved what they got because they were godless. Thank goodness I had a history professor mother that was tired of seeing me drink the koolade and took me out of fundyville.

    1. The number of extinct species outnumber surviving species by orders of magnitude. The most conservative guess right now is 1 billion extinct species, although most estimates put it closer to 4 billion. You couldn’t fit those on the ark if you burnt them all to ashes.

        1. I would say it is a problem only to fundies who insist that the earth is a few thousand years old, that the flood was global, that every kind of animal was on the ark, that animals never evolve, and that the entire earth was repopulated with animals from the ark after the flood. Change any one of these presuppositions and there is no problem.

        2. True. Maybe it was just one mammal, one reptile, one insect, etc.
          Of course, if you look at it that way, the story of the flood doesn’t explain anything.

        3. Even if it was just one family and a pet squirrel, the story still “explains” quite a bit. 😐

        4. @Big Gary There is a significant difference in order of magnitude between “species” and categories such as “mammal.” No one claimed God only took one insect on the ark. . . It obviously had to be at least two . . . (sarcasm).

    2. “The Beast was a five-story computer in Luxembourg.”

      This Christian Urban Legend began when fiction (an End Time Prophecy novel) got mistaken for fact after the third or fourth retelling. (In the original novel, the Beast was in Belgium, not Luxembourg.)

      1. Don’t forget the big daddy of all conspiracies: JFK. The vast majority of us on this blog care nothing about Christianity and are anti-Christian because of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Fundamentalists believe that someone other than Oswald did it. Anyone who believes this is a gullible fool. Anyone who doesn’t believe the Warren Commission is a fool. Thus, most fundies are fools.

        1. I don’t understand why you refer to “us on this blog” as if you’re including yourself . . . but earlier, you complained that the fact that people referenced Snopes.com “destroyed our credibility.” Plus I’m not sure JFK is an issue on this blog . . . or in Fundyland in general. Most fundies don’t have much sympathy for him because of his politics anyway.

        2. You totally don’t get it. Nobody cares about JFK either way. We are indifferent about who he was, his politics, his religion, or anything about him. What we are passionate about is the JFK assassination. JFK has nothing to do with anything. Anyone who believes that anyone other than Oswald was “in on it” is a moronic, gullible, fool. Fundies believe that Oswald did not act alone. This was the final straw that drove most of us away from Christianity. Anyone who believes in wild, weird, stupid conspiracy theories is a moron.

        3. I’m not buying what you are selling, Shandurlki.

          The Indie Fundies might buy some crazy notions, but you are just making stuff up. Or perhaps you are confusing the Indie Fundies and the John Birch Society.

        4. Michael Kreger, you are naive. Ask anyone on this site why they left Christianity and I bet that 98% will say because of John F. Kennedy. This was the final straw that most of us gave up Chrristianity over. You apparently are a troll who is making up nonsensical posts. The JFK assassination is THE defining doctrine of fundamentalism and anyone who says differently isn’t even funny in their attempts at trolling.

        5. OK, Shandurlki, you need to speak for yourself only. Don’t drag anyone else into your line of thought. We’ll just let others speak up if they agree with you. If no one does, then we can believe the silence over you.

        6. Please help me out here, people. I’m still fairly new here and I can’t tell if Shandurlki is a troll, a Poe or delusional. Since the assination happened almost 50 years ago,I doubt few people here actually remember it. What proof that it caused so many to leave Christianity? What makes you think people who post here have left Christianity?

        7. Are you sure it’s a Poe? Poe’s aren’t usually so VERY mean-spirited and claim to speak for everyone. Unless this is a new species of non-fundy Poe.

          And Shandurlki, this is the first time I’ve seen you here. Seems strange you show up to speak (falsely) for us all. Whatever your goal here, could you please tone down the extreme aggression? Unless you’re intending to be a troll, in which case I’m sorry I fed you.

      2. Come on, its pretty obvious to anyone who understands the geo-technical landscape that when the Antichrist builds the Beast computer, it would clearly be located in London or Amsterdam due to the confluence of interconnected dark fiber networks in those locations. Although personally my money is on Northern Virginia or Maryland since its already there.

        1. Ok, Joe R., I’ll bite. What was the reason you leave Christianity? Please be honest. I bet it had something to do with a conspiracy theory such as chemtrails. Don’t try to be funny and make us some answer.

        2. I didn’t leave Christianity. I left Fundamentalism. I can’t speak for everyone, but most of the stories that frequent posters on this site have shared will lead us to believe that I am in the majority. That is “left fundamentalism” not “left Christianity.” Are you unaware of the difference?

  6. Fundies and science crack me up. You all should read some of the Bob Jones science curriculum for high school. They spend so much time trying to sound like they know what they are talking about and that they are the only ones who can talk about it Biblically that you walk away saying “What???”.

    I too have heard all the science pseudo-babble about microphones recording hell, dust on the moon, and missing days. I used to believe it hook-line-and sinker, but now it just makes me smile and shake my head. I would love to know which study Stick Father analyzed to be able to speak with such authority to Stick Jr.

    1. The “dust on the moon” proof of Young Earth Creationism is a type of argument called an “armageddon proof”.

      The real reason the dust on the moon’s surface is only an inch or two thick (instead of dozens of feet) is that the sun’s radiation DOES break down the rocks into dust; however, once the dust builds up to an inch or two, it shields the surface below it from further breakdown. This is called “reaching a stable equilibrium”, and is the usual refutation of armageddon proofs.

  7. I remember reading in Billy James Hargis’ “Communism, Hypnotism and the Beatles” (1965) that Pavlov did further experiments with his bell slobbering dogs. He supposedly used syncopated rhythms to drive them into anxiety and even to kill them!

    1. I remember that one! Big favorite back at my old fundy high school (long story), interesting how now the Beatles broke up, the Soviet Union is gone, and hypnotism is often a sideshow act.

  8. I think God gets his cup of coffee in the morning and reads “Scientific American” to start His day off with a good laugh!

    “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain balbblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith, Grace be with thee, Amen.” 1 Timothy 6:20-21

    1. Nice piece of foolish anthropomorphism there. And I noticed the substitution of “science” for “knowledge” as well. I presume you’re trying to associate Paul’s warning with a mockery of science. Not really clever enough.

      1. Why all the hate?

        I quoted the verse exactly 😯 Hint: there is more than one version of the bible, but I do particularly like that verse in the KJV!

        I love it when “clever” folks, being the “clever” rascals they are, out”clever” themselves, and make of themselves what most of their friends and family know they are!

        So God and I thank you again for an evening chuckle!

        1. You like a bad translation because it supports an unBiblical position about God and His creation? πŸ˜•

        2. Ronnie – I actually use the NIV, but I don’t consider the KJV a “bad translation” in fact quite the contrary, it’s a very good 17th century translation. But who rang your bell? If you have something to say, then just say it!

          All I know about you right now is that you know nothing about bible translations and you do alot of assuming!

        3. I was actually referring to this particular verse, not the entire scope of translation.

          Of course, you wouldn’t be assuming anything there, would you? πŸ™„

        4. Ronnie – You said “you like a bad translation” that infers exactly what you said and not a “verse.”

          Another hint: Quit commenting on this subject, you are continuing to make yourself look even more foolish!

        5. Totally my fault I managed somehow to confuse NKJV and KJV in the multitranslation portal I use. My apologies for missing that. I will instead maintain that “gnosis” shouldn’t be called “science” – it’s far better to use “knowledge” in modern English (particularly “gnosis” is the choice in the Septuagint for “da’ath”. When the KJV was written, what we call “science” was frequently referred to as “natural philosophy”. My comments on anthropomorphism stand, however. FYI, you received no hate. I simply commented on what I still regard as a ridiculously inaccurate view of God’s nature, and made a silly reading error. I’m going to agree with Ronnie that the KJV is a poor translation of 1 Tim 6:20, because of meaning shifts since the early Jacobean. The fact that you quoted it and claimed to primarily use the NIV means that you are using archaic word usage for a cheap belly laugh. Unimpressive.

        6. I figured that you somehow overlooked that because you are generally a well-spoken commenter. What I do find hard to understand is that my little quip about God having his morning coffee and having a laugh at simple men’s “attempt” at explaining His laws, and then using the KJV’s use of the phrase “science falsely so-called” is completely in line with the topic at hand and was pretty creative if I must say so myself! I would have thought that instead of complaining about it, you would have “gotten” it and applauded my sarcasm.(or at least understood it) So that tells me you may place a higher value on “science” than perhaps you should! I guoted Robert Jastrow, an astronomer below, and it bears repeating because I believe it explains your response.

          “Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind – supposedly a very objective mind – when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the (articles of faith in our profession.) It turns out that the scientists behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.”

        7. Perhaps what has always bothered me the most about these attempts to describe God’s response to our attempts to understand His creation is that it’s too often a vehicle for the speaker’s mockery. And that never sits well. I suppose that this underlies your point that I “overvalue science;” I certainly value it highly while getting surgery, driving a car, use computers, anjoy not dying of food poisoning, etc. In no wise does it mean that I think that science’s inherent skepticism is a satisfactory basis for a worldview.
          As far as the Jastrow quote goes – I’m not really old enough or astrophysicist enough to have gotten into the steady state vs. Big Bang wars. I’ll trust him on the reaction to the discovery of constant background radiation and the resulting model fight. And he’s absolutely right – scientists have deeply-held prejudices too.

    1. That sounds like a misunderstanding of the term “black-hot”. As a radiating body or plasma (like a flame) gets hotter, it goes up the EM spectrum; when you get to the six million degrees of deuterium fusion (achieved in the core of stars and for an instant in a nuclear explosion), the light emitted by the hot object/plasma IS invisible to the human eye, somewhere between high-end UV and “soft” X-rays. (The thermal pulse and flash of a nuclear explosion is when the X-ray heated air-turned-plasma COOLS down into only white-hot.)

  9. Fundies and science? Here’s one; if the earth is only 10,000 – 12,000 years old, how can we see the light from a star that is 100,000 light years away?

    1. God created the light after creating the stars. Or God created the earth at the age of 5billion yrs. old to start with.
      (I’m not saying these are the right answers – these are the answers that young-earth people give)

      1. Dear Nathan:

        Wouldn’t ‘creation with apparent age’ make God a liar?

        Christian Socialist

        PS: Ducks for incoming projectiles … saucers, rolling pins, and perhaps a few bibles … :mrgreen:

        1. I suppose for some people to be consistent in their beliefs it would.

          I never think of the issue of truthfulness and deception without remembering a discussion in grad school at BJU. My professor, who was enormously intelligent and rational and a great arguer, lit into me because I try very earnestly to never utter an untruth (or to write one — unless I’m writing fiction in which case it’s not an untruth because the genre of fiction allows for this). She said that since I held that position I was not allowed to turn on a light in my home when I wasn’t there because I was trying to deceive robbers into thinking that I was home.

          I didn’t have the argumentative skills to debate her, but she didn’t change my mind. I think the Bible several times explicitly states to SPEAK truth but allows for deception to be used as when the Israelites attacked Ai for the second time.

          How’s that for a thread derail? πŸ˜‰ Your mentioning the potential for God to seem as if He were being unclear thus potentially deceptive and thus a liar reminded me of this.

        2. Of course, and he had to wait for fruit and vegetables, and animals to grow first before he could eat. It was an interesting several months before the Garden of Eden began producing fruit.

        3. Its s bit more complex than that. We are watching planets explode from light that is several billion years old. If “the light was created in transit” (a scientifically meaningless term since a photon is a probability packet, but this isn’t a cosmology thread) then God created light that looks like a planet exploding billions of years ago, when in fact there was no planet at all. Does this make God a liar? Not at all. What it does do, however, is render our powers of observation impotent. That may not be of concern until the Bible student realizes just how recursive such a position might be. If I can’t trust my basic senses to understand very, very simple velocity equations re: light, then I can’t trust them for interpreting any other physical phenomena, including but not limited to the Bible, which is a physical artifact. Regardless of one’s position, let’s at least think carefully before pronouncing.

        4. Thanks for the responses!

          I confess that I was speaking ‘tongue in cheek’ as opposed to offering either a scientific or theological explanation of the ‘young earth’ question. I sometimes enjoy the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ role but play it seldom since I tend to end up about 5% Advocate.

          Trouble is, the prevalent idiocy in Fundanistan sometimes reduces ‘fact’ and the mockery of it to a distinction without meaning.

          Christian Socialist

        5. Dr Fundystan – it is essentially a version of “Last Thursdayism” (I love that term!!). All knowledge essentially cease – it is in effect an extreme postmodernist position.

          Which is quite ironical, and very funny, coming to think of it….

      2. There is a lot the scientific community doesn’t fully understand about light from distant stars. There are so many variables that play into the calculations. Then there is the pesky topic of “dark matter.” Aside from the fact that, the points used for triangulation don’t make calculations entirely reliable. (Note: I’m not saying that science is wrong. I am part of the scientific community. I’m just stating it isn’t quite as cut and dry as people think it is.)

        1. Hushai, please don’t take this as an insult, but you are incorrect. There are not “so many variables” that play into light from distant stars. In fact, the variables can be described with an equation that is shorter than this sentence. The topic of “dark matter” is not pesky and has virtually nothing to do with light from distant stars nor distance calculations. As for triangulation, it is accurate within statistical control limits, which is all we can hope for in any metric, but it is not a means used to calculate distance except for rough approximations. I’m not sure where you got the idea that measuring the distance of celestial bodies was difficult; but the math is as solid as junior high algebra. Which it is.

        2. That’s fine. I openly admit I could be wrong. That post was written through the fog of some things I read awhile back. I thought there was something about dark matter affecting gravity and gravity affecting light that did play a part though.

        3. Dear Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

          That’s a ton of light for someone who works where you do! Can you explain to us why it’s called an asteroid when it is in the hemisphere and a hemorrhoid when it’s up your butt?

          Christian Socialist

          PS: Please read this in the playful sense that it is offered. :mrgreen: I have a proctologist in my life, and at times, this guy becomes a very important person in my life. I couldn’t begin to pay him enough!

        4. Dear Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

          You wrote: ‘my specialty is cranio-rectal extractions…’

          I reply: ‘that’s something that most of us just don’t see every day.’

          Your remark reminds me of a political forum on which someone once posted a remark to the effect, ‘I see that your cranial-rectal shunt is working at 100% capacity today.’ Unless I’m mistaken, that referred to something entirely different than what you do.

          On the other hand, it is arguable that any number of ‘preachers’ already produce the same effect without the shunt.

          Christian Socialist

    2. Listen…we can’t even develop a paper milk carton that opens on the end that says “Open here” without tearing. You don’t think it’s minimally possible they are wrong about light-years?

      1. Who? Astrophysicists? The calculation of light-years depend only upon the absence of an ether (Michaelson-Morley), the STR (Einstein), and the existence of a global plenum for visual observation (too many astrophysicists to cite). The likelihood that light-years are significantly mismeasured is pretty low. YECs are stuck, IMO, with either accepting a young Earth in an old Cosmos or a Cosmos with an far greater apparent age than it truly has. Arguments about the inability of God to create an apparently-old Cosmos ex nihilo remind me of arguments of angels and pinheads. Since you posit an supernatural Cause for an event, it isn’t fair to quote natural laws to attempt refutation. Frankly, I regard the question as technically undecidable. And irrelevant.

        1. Well there are some YEC & geocentrists (yes, those do exist) that are arguing against STR & GTR, citing some evil conspiracy, argue for the aether and postulate a universe that can be measured in light-days…

          I kid you not. See this fellow (btw, Darrel, an idea for a post…): http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/stott-intro.htm

          Yes, I knew him personally, in my Fundy youth….

  10. I learned this magnificent truth from Darrell Dunn and Ron Comfort. Then a year later I learned from John Todd how each and every rock record had it’s own personalized demonic spell cast on it and a demon in each record. Stories abounded of rock records being burns and screams emanating from the flames. You know…it’s a wonder I never wound up in a clock tower with an AK 47

    1. A former church member taught that in a Sunday School class, and one of the teens asked if the demons get dizzy and throw up from spinning around on the records.

    2. You do know Cornerstone exposed John Todd as delusional and a fraud?

      Stories abounded of rock records being burned and screams emanating from the flames.

      In the version of that urban legend I heard, it wasn’t rock records, it was D&D Miniatures.

        1. and that’s just proof that he was right and the trilateral commission had to get rid of him before he blew the lid off their one-worlder conspiracy.

      1. MELTING DOWN D&D minis?! There certainly was screaming. The screaming of the kid who paid for those minis with money from his after-school job!!!

        (Although he might also have been screaming, “Dad, those are made of lead/plastic–you can’t melt those in the HOUSE–DAD–” just before the smoke alarm went off.)

    3. So there are demons behind every single rock song, eh? Is that why most stuff on the radio sounds sucks? 😑
      I feel sorry for the ones in charge of the mellow ’70s songs. πŸ™„

      1. I was told “I Write the Songs” was clear proof “rock” music (that is, anything popular the speaker didn’t like) was written by demons. The proof?

        “I’ve been alive forever…” so, obviously nothing human here.

        “My home lies deep within you,
        And I’ve got my own place in your soul.
        Now, when I look out through your eyes,
        I’m you’g again, even though I’m very old…” obvious reference to demon possession.

        “Oh my music makes you dance
        And gives you spirit to take a chance,
        And I wrote some rock ’n’ roll so you can move…” He’s going to make me dance? Anything but that!

        Obviously, this is a demon who wants to tell you all about how he’s going to possess your soul and make you dance and who knows what all else before he actually does it so you’ll invite him in. Because a devil wouldn’t lie. All that soft music is just a coverup to lull you into complacency, so you’ll do what he tells you. πŸ™„

        1. Yep! I just heard that sermon again about five years ago. His points were these:

          1. Don’t listen to Queen because “We Are the Champions” is prideful. Yep. Otherwise, they are just fine in Fundyland, Haymen?

          2. Don’t listen to Barry Manilow because “I Write the Songs” is about demon possession. Now, every red-blooded man knows that we risk losing our man card for listening to Barry Manilow, but that wasn’t his point.

          3. Don’t listen to any “Praise & Worship” songs because they are written by charismatics.

          At the end of his remarks, the faculty choir stood up and sang a song to the tune of the Shaker Hymn. And who were the Shakers, you might ask? Why, they were 18th-century charismatics, called Shakers because of their “singing and dancing, shaking and shouting, speaking with new tongues and prophesying.” I laughed out loud, and explained to those around me what had just happened, and how there was a pretty strong chance that the sermon (which I first heard around 1978) was a bunch of hooey.

        2. “I Write the songs is about demonic possesion.”
          BWAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHA1 That’s the most ludicrous hilarious thing I’ve ever heard! Who knew Barry Manilow was so of the devil

    4. Dear Craig:

      Would it surprise you to learn that there is a devil in every bottle of alcohol? I was told this long before I began home brewing beers and ails. Now that I do brew, I have to keep a stock of caged devils and drop one in the top of every bottle just before capping it. That way the little blighter slides out to possess the drinker on the first sip. No wonder people like their beers and ails!

      Christian Socialist

      1. I keep caged devils too! I slip them into decks of cards before I invite my unsuspecting neighbors over for poker night.
        Hey…do your caged devils look amazingly just like the demons in Joe Chick tracts? Because mine are dead ringers.

        1. Dear Craig:

          I have a close friend who has had some dealing with Jack Chick in the past. From what I’ve heard, our respective devils are decidedly better looking than Mr. Chick.

          Christian Socialist

      2. Why am I not surprised that we have home brewers here? This blog is getting more and more predictable every day. Anyone who is a home brewer is a far left nutjob who home brews because they think it’s “quaint” and that they are “sticking it to the man” and because it’s just a trite fad that somehow the radical left has picked up on as a hobby. Why don’t you just be a real man and PBR me ASAP?

        1. that’s weird, all the homebrewers I know do it because it’s fun to make something on your own. You know, taking ownership of a process. Kind of like handcrafting furniture or baking cookies.

        2. Because PBR is swill not fit for consumption by sewer rats. Homebrew, OTOH, requires math and science skills, as well as a sense of taste.

        3. I know some serious home brewers who are most definitely not on the left side of the political spectrum. And last time I checked, Appalachia wasn’t a hotbed for the left πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

  11. My fundy lite pasor recently quoted “scientific proof” that racism originated with the rise of Darwinism in his sermon on Noah’s three sons. I lost a lot of respect for him that morning as he showed an appalling lack of scholarship (never mind objectivity). It occurred to me, that although he seems to be sincere, he is not very intelligent (if he is intelligent than he must be dishonest).

    1. Racism has been around much, much longer than Darwinism. Although, your pastor was correct in that Darwanism in its very basic premise is about as horribly racist as it can possibly be. The fact that those totally goes right over your head is further proof that this blog is as nothing but the rantings of emotionally-led, non-thinking, easily-duped non-thinkers.

      1. Sheila, Sheila: Care to demonstrate your assertion? With facts a,d logical arguments?

        Also, any idiot can misuse anything to further his own agenda, of which fundyism is a prime example. So just because Jo racist quotes Darwin, doesn’t make Evolution wrong. That type of argument fails logic 101.

  12. I remember the A Beka curriculum claiming that all significant scientific advancements were made by Bible-believing Christians. The problem with that is that just about everybody back hundreds of years ago was a nominal Christian. Just because Isaac Newton, Pascal, and Copernicus made some isolated statement about God doesn’t mean much. Furthermore, those same scientists who discovered real scientific truths (like gravity and pressure laws, for instance) also believed in mysticism, magic, alchemy and witchcraft. Yes, these scientists did discover some truths, but they were groping their way in the dark, and a halfway thorough investigation of their personal beliefs would destroy their fundy cred (and the entire Beka science curriculum).
    The desperation to celebrate “Christian” scientists also led to an inordinate focus on minor scientists that no one else ever heard of (Matthew Murry, for instance, who discovered sea currents after reading the verse about the “paths of the seas.”) He took up close to 4 pages in my Beka science book, and he showed up in more than one grade level. I’ve never heard of him anywhere else.
    I remember my math teacher (teaching from the Bkea curriculum) explaining that the Arabs invented algebra and other mathematical concepts, but because they didn’t believe in the one true God, they weren’t able to advance beyond the rudiments. Then he talked about Romans 1 for a looooong time. Somebody was obviously trying to fulfil his “integration of biblical worldview into class material” requirement.

    1. That bit about most everyone being a nominal Christian is so very spot on. I get so frustrated with arguments about how X group of people were Christians, and that’s why they were able to do Y, to the complete disregard of the fact that their cultural environment was one in which everyone was socially tied to Christianity regardless of their personal beliefs. Of course, maybe that’s just another symptom of a lack of scholarship and the willingness to view X historical phenomena within its context rather than through our own.

    2. Excom – I also find it amusing how Fundy pastors talk about how there was once a great Christian awakening in America when, in reality, they would NEVER allow any of those central figures – like Edwards and Whitfield (both Calvinists) or Wesley (a paedobaptist) – anywhere near their pulpits. The rule seems to be if they’re dead then they were orthodox but if they’re alive then they are heretics.

      1. I noticed this too: they respected and honored many people of the past without seeming to realize the areas on which they disagreed or the hypocrisy in focusing on the unity of the faith only with people from the past and not with real-life brothers and sisters in Christ right now.

        1. Just like how the USSR’s “Heroes of the People” were always conveniently dead and thus unable to detract from their Official Hagiography. (That is, if they even existed — remember Orwell’s “Comrade Ogilvy”?)

      2. …and conversly if they were heretical in life then they are cannonized in death. How many IFB revivalists have devoured Finney’s Biography and practice his revivalism tactics?

        1. This is done not only in regards to scientific figures, but historical ones as well. I remember being introduced to Napoleon by way of his comments on the Bible–he make all these glittering statements about how true and valuable it is. For a long time I thought he was this nice man who went around promoting the Bible.
          Same thing with literary figures (and as an English major, this is what infuriates me the most.) When I was introduced (by fundies) to Emily Dickinson, Mark Twain, and William Blake (all of them atheists, or at least theologically heretical from a fundy standpoint), a few of their quotes or poems were carefully selected and presented as proof that “literature is the record of man’s response to God” and that “Christians produce the best of everything.”

        2. Don – very astute comment. Although they follow Finney’s MO, I never saw/heard him used as an example…they always cited his disciple practioner Billy Sunday. Walk the sawdust trail! Alcohol is the root of all evil! [Insert favorite fundy cliche here!] I think I need another Remy Martin…

        3. Don – I hope for your first banquet in heaven, they sit you right beside Charles Finney! πŸ˜€

        4. @excommunicated

          The A Beka English curriculum lost me when I saw that the illustration they have accompanying John Donne’s “A Valediction Forbidding Mourning” (a poem that uses a drawing compass as its imagery) was a lovely photo of an antique directional compass… πŸ™„

      3. in my fundy circles, what was most celebrated about the Great Awakening is the anti-establishment element (“They wouldn’t let Whitefield preach in the church, so he preached in the field! They kicked Roger Williams out of the church, so he went and preached to Indians!”) Somehow, the matter of WHY people got kicked out of the church/community, and WHAT exactly they preached out in the cornfields, and how convincing or lasting the effects of that preaching really WERE . . . is deemed irrelevant.
        yes, there is a time to go against the grain and stand up for what’s right, and I’m sure some of these men deserve respect for their stance. But just simply being so belligerent that your church doesn’t want you around is not in itself a commendation.

        1. Excom – It is also almost duplicitous how they (Fundies) pick and choose certain beliefs held by these men to show how they (modern MOGs) are the modern day counterparts. My old pastor was quick to cite passages from Edwards’ sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” but NEVER made mentioned of Edwards “An Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of the Freedom of the Will…” because that would show the folly of their decisional regeneration shtick. I am convinced that Fundy MOGs don’t want their congregations reading anything not written by one of their cronies.

    3. Dear excommunicated from fundyland:

      I wonder how many sharp, Christian graduates from unaccredited fundamentalist colleges could solve quadratic equations or construct the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

      Christian Socialist

      1. My fundy high school was pretty bad, but I did learn to solve quadratic equations there. I don’t know about Fundy colleges because I attended an engineering school that was evangelical, but not Fundy.

    4. “they weren’t able to advance beyond the rudiments”

      …as a history buff, that offends me on so very, very many levels. I am very thoroughly a Christian. I strongly believe that God has directed many scientific discoveries for the good of mankind and that many scientists have believed in Him. But to propagate this… utter mistruth… ugh! Terrible!

      The Muslims, for example, discovered the importance of sanitation before medical procedures. Want to know how? It came out of the practice of praying–which includes washing the hands–before surgeries. Everyone suddenly noticed that the Muslim doctors’ patients died less often than everyone else’s.

      Or let’s talk about the shamanist/Buddhist/Muslim/Manichaeism/Christian/whatever else you felt like Chinese philosophers who discovered gunpowder and Circadian rhythms and diabetes.

      Or let’s go even farther back to the foundations of modern mathematics, the decidedly non-Christian Greeks.

      Again, ugh! Such a lie!

  13. I am suprised that this thread has degenerated into a discussion about “scientific facts” and we are losing site of the REAL truth: Fundy 101 clearly states that ALL subjects (not just science) are to be viewed skeptically EXCEPT those endorsed by your local MOG…was I the only one to take that class?

    1. No need for skepticism in fundyland, as it requires at least a bit of thinking for yourself (do I believe this to be true or not?). If you come across something you are not sure of your MOG’s stance on, just go ask him, then you will know the truth πŸ˜‰

      1. TripletMom – You must have had a much more accessible MOG than I did. As a practical matter, our MOG was too busy travelling the country (to Greenville and Hammond for the most part) or otherwise locked away in his study to be able to spare the time to answer questions from the flock. When he thought something was important enough, he would speak ex cathedra from the pulpit so everyone was on the same page. πŸ˜‰

        1. Ahh, I see πŸ™‚ I come from a small fundy church (about 250 members). So yeah, the pastor was pretty accessible. I was just saying that I was rarely ever skeptical of anything growing up. I didn’t think it mattered one bit if *I* believed something was true or not. It was all about what the MOG said that the Bible said. Everything the “world” said was wrong, everything the church said was right, period. While I didn’t live according to all the fundy rules once I was an adult, it took me until I was 28 (last year) to actually question them! And the only reason I did, is because I was struggling with how to raise my kids. I knew they would soon be seeing the hypocrisy in my life. So I thought, I am either IN or I’m OUT! And that my friends, is how I left fundamentalism after 25 years πŸ˜€

        2. I grew up on the edge of Hammond . . in my parents’ vocab, it is definitely a “podunk” town. I think that means poor, trashy, generally unimportant. The idea of anyone traveling any distance to go there, as if it’s some sort of Mecca, makes me giggle.

        3. TripletMom – Right now I am doing the Snoopy dance around my office for you (after I closed the door)! I am glad that A. you were able to see the truth, and B. that if your moniker is correct and you are raising three kids, you don’t have much time to dance yourself. (We have two and I cannot fathom having to chase a third.) Best Wishes!

        4. Thanks! You guys on SFL are seriously the best. πŸ˜€ This blog has helped very much with the tough transition out of fundyland. As my emotions calm down, and I settle into life outside the cult, I am happier than ever, and with a much brighter outlook for the future. And I do indeed have triplets, they are almost 3 πŸ˜€

        5. Dear Bro Bluto:

          ‘he would speak ex cathedra from the pulpit …’

          Excellent! πŸ˜†

          Christian Socialist

  14. This is called confirmation bias, and we are all guilty of it to some extent. It’s just that fundies seem to be all too willing to invent material to confirm their biases. It’s no wonder they have a conspiratorial view of the world. They think everyone is just like them πŸ˜₯

  15. Ha! saw the hover text. That only means that one can heap more damnation on themselves by living longer under the influence of demon alcohol! More and more sin will be laid to their account! They will get deeper and deeper in sin until one day they will be too far gone for the IFB gid to save. πŸ™„

  16. I remember being taught that listening to rock music would get you demon possessed, even if it were the very first time. This was followed by an illustration of how the preacher knew this girl that listened to rock music once and was possessed. He cast the demon out of her and it tried to kill her.

    I thought to myself, glory, everyone in this chapel is probably demon possessed. 😈

  17. I’m married to a scientist (gasp!). One of the things that bugs me most is misuse or misunderstanding of the word “theory” by Fundies and others. Evolution is dismissed because it’s “just a theory” regardless of the mountain of evidence.

      1. The use of poorly defined terms is not limited to fundyland – some scientists seem to like to use them to link unlinkable causes and effects as well. As do most people with MBA’s and anyone whose job description involves “optimization” – oh, and anyone in IT whose title is “Architect” which being translated means “good idea fairy who doesn’t have to implement anything in the real world”

      2. Craig: And may I ask, what degrees do you have? How have you studied the theories etc to enable you to make such a sweeping statement?

        For one thing, please explain the fossil record…

  18. Robert Jastrow, an agnostic Astronomer, observes:

    Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind – supposedly a very rare objective mind – when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with (the articles of faith in our profession.) It turns out tht the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.

    1. Elija Craig, thanks for the truth. Alcoholics are hopeless, worthless, and beyond any degree of help or hope! Any thought that they can in any way shape or form get their lives under control and lead noble lives is pure bunk. Thanks for telling us the truth.

        1. What seems to be the problem? Are you one of those fundies who things that alcoholics can somehow “get their lives under control?”

        2. No, actually I think addicts are addicts, and simply replace one addiction with another when they appear to have “quit” something. Anyhow, just trying to get a handle on who is kidding here and who isn’t. Not an easy task πŸ˜•

      1. [Elija Craig, thanks for the truth. SINNERS are hopeless, worthless, and beyond any degree of help or hope! Any thought that they can in any way shape or form get their lives under control and lead noble lives is pure bunk. Thanks for telling us the truth.]

        Fixed it for ya.

    2. I haven’t been here for awhile. Obviously I missed nothing. You people are nuts. You keep playing the poor “victim” card about those affected by baptist pastors. Yet if we go by your incredibly stupid philosophies, then the criminally-charged pastors are the real victims because they are just sex addicts who can’t control themselves and we should all just coddle them for being “victims of a disease” of sex addiction, just like alcoholism.

      Tell me something, are you people really this naive and gullible? Is this blog a satirical site to show how deluded and crazy the left is? You people can’t really be as stupid as you portray yourselves, can you?

  19. The stick figure cartoon addressed both science and music. We’ve covered the science part at great length, but not the music part. I’ve often wondered what the sources that Frank Garlock uses would say about the way that he applies their quotes.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.