12/18/08

Friedrich Nietzsche Nails the Freedom From Religion Foundation

FYI: this post has been moved here.

69 comments:

  1. Mariano,

    I have many issues with your post here. Too many really to tackle wholesale, so I would just like to pick one to start out with. That is, what is your justification for this statement: "...in December they make intolerant, belligerent, malicious, prejudice and offensive statements in speeches, print, billboards ..."

    I have read many of the statements from the FFRF and, while I can understand why you may not like what they say and I can understand why you may think that they are wrong, but, for the life of me, I can see no reason to characterize what they said as intolerant, malicious, prejudice or offensive.

    Specifically what is it that they say that invokes such a negative reaction? Perhaps the problem is not so much in what the FFRF says as but has more to do with your own insecurities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hate to point this out, but the good ol' Declaration is not the basis of US law. That's the Constitution. The Declaration was a fabulous piece of propaganda.
    ...And “…their creator…nature’s God…” is more deist than Jesusist (they would've mentioned Him by name, had they intended such things).
    ...And neither of those are mentioned in the Constitution.

    "A quarter of a century ago the Supreme Court concluded that the traditions such as opening legislative session in prayer is not unconstitutional because it had not caused the establishment of religion (and this is what we are dealing with the establishment clause)"
    "Dear Jesus, we'd like to thank you, LORD, for telling the Supreme Court to..."
    Any plans for letting the Satanist's get a plaque? How about the Marionites? Gnostics?

    "After receiving numerous complaints the city’s Redevelopment Director “contacted the billboard company…and asked if the company could do anything.”" & "The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Annie Laurie Gaylor too a wild faith-based guess and stated, 'They used their intimidation powers against the billboard company, I believe…They were contacting them to chill our speech.'"
    "Faith-based"? Really? Pointing out that "numerous complaints" (of a pretty mild saying) is "intimidation powers" is faith-based now? Another question?

    "they make intolerant, belligerent, malicious, prejudice and offensive statements in speeches..."
    Like " I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."
    Wups, that was Jimmy Swaggart. Clean out the logs in your own camp before you point out the vaguely offensive thing "our side" says.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even if you agree with Dan Barker on various issues do you not think, “Oi vey! No Dan. No. We are not expected to believe in God just because the overwhelming majority of residents pray and proclaim a day of prayer.”

    Mariano,

    When it is the government that is making the proclamation then the message is clear that government expects you to believe in some deity (God is the implied deity but that is left unstated.) If the government makes a proclamation that this Monday is the official day of Scientology Auditing and we should all go and get in touch with our inner Thetan

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices)

    then it is reasonable to assume that the government wants us to believe in Scientology.

    The government is the government of all the people, not just the majority. And even if the majority of people become Scientologists the government has no business promoting those beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The reason why the FFRR sues so fregquently, which is not free, is that they MAKE MONEY off of it.

    They frequently, freguently, get settlements to just "go away".

    This is beyond dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Modus, without that "piece of propaganda" you call the Declaration, there would have been no Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Andrew: Does that make the Declaration Law?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I now realize all those Evangelical Atheists are satanists in disguise.

    They know that atheism is false, no intelligent man can adhere to it. Atheism doesn't hold up for more than 5 minutes of thinking

    Those Richard Dawkins and co., are not truth seeker, this is ovious. They r not your average agnostic who say they don't know whether we were created or not.

    But Satan plans is to destroy all the foundations so that the field is cleared up for humanity to fall for anything.

    But God is real and mightier than Satan (the Prince of this world). But humanity is seduced.

    Just watch tv and you will see that the foundations r completely removed.

    So those so called atheists (i believe they r not) are puppets in the hands of their Master who is Satan.

    Atheism is the end of everything, when i debate with atheists I can see that they r not sincere when they pretend that atheism leads to a better life. How could it be so???

    No Creator God = no purpose, no menaing, no morals...

    Yes so called atheists are morals because God created us in his image, but once you believe there is no Creator then real atheists should live accordingly. No right, no wrong, no real love, nothing... total void and emptyness.

    That's why real Christians (not the blasphemous catholicism and other sects) should be confident because they r on the right side. And they shouldn't be ashamed to nail atheism down and slap its ugly face.

    We can't compromise and be too nice with satanists delusions.

    Yes the universe was created and that's the truth Satan doesn't want u to know.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Declaration of Independence as been use in a court of law as law. I don't remember the case but it was a slavery case in that the words "All men are created equal" are only found in the Declaration. It is the basis of all that we hold dear when it comes to civil rights.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BTW Satan DOES exist.

    One of his plan is to make humanity believe that he doesn't exist.

    So once again for the purpose of letting humanity fall away from the truth.

    For example once people don't believe Satan is real, they will take any supernatural apparitions as something genuine and innocent (like the Marian apparitions).

    Humanity is fooled and is going astray far from the Truth in Jesus Christ.

    Time to wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. National Day of Prayer vs. what Jesus Himself said about it:

    5:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

    5:6 "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Martin,

    When ever you get a group of people together in public to pray, there is always an element of theater to it. This frequently leads to some humorous results, like the prayer group that met underneath that statue of a bull on Wall Street to pray for relief from the financial crisis. I suppose Yahweh didn't smote them because the statue was made of bronze and not gold. (Or perhaps the auto industry meltdown is the smoteing.)

    In the FFRF situation, the issue is not that some people want to pray but that the government is endorsing the practice. Frankly, if people want to pray, I may think that it is a silly waste of time and effort, but I would never try or condone the use of our legal system to stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. David, you say:

    That's why real Christians (not the blasphemous catholicism and other sects) should be confident because they r on the right side. And they shouldn't be ashamed to nail atheism down and slap its ugly face.

    Hey, that's fine with me, as long as it's atheism they're nailing down and slapping, and not atheists. I have no problems with Christians or Christianity, as long as the Christians behave nicely, and the Christianity is not forced on us. That's what the separation of Church and State is all about, or should be all about.

    That means, for instance, as jdhuey said, that students should be allowed to pray in public schools (as they are, as far as I know), but that prayer should not be led or endorsed for all students. It especially means that the Bible has no place in science classes.

    For example once people don't believe Satan is real, they will take any supernatural apparitions as something genuine and innocent (like the Marian apparitions).

    Are you telling me that the Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary is the work of the Devil? Now I know why she's holding a plasma gun...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Zilch,

    "Christianity is not forced on us"

    Was it ever forced on you? I think not. If you talk about Roman Catholicism then I can only agree with you.
    Acknowledging the Creator though is a must for a healthy start in life and society. It's not enough though, even demons acknowledge the Creator. But it's the start of wisdom.

    God never forced anything on us, but we can only blame ourselves for all the calamities that will fall on us once we have became full blown blasphemers, idol worshipers, lovers of the earthly pleasures rather than lovers of the Truth.
    This is what happened to Israel, which was chosen by Yahweh to be the godly nation, but Israel preferred Satan. Like our so called modern society.

    Christianity also needs to be defined, since now i think it has lost meaning. What I mean by Christianity is the following of the infallible Word of God, the Bible. And of course the repentance from sins and acceptance to forfeit your life to the Savior of Humanity Yeshua aka Jesus Christ.

    But when people and societies start to accept devil philosophies like atheism then it's the beginning of Hell. Only need to look at the history of mankind and the 20th century.

    I can't be convinced otherwise. The world's events is a display of Satanic activity influencing men and women. Abortion, homosexual "marriage", euthanasia, Marxism, Darwinism,...etc u name it, all undermine the 10 commandments of our Lord.

    We r created, universe was made for a purpose, we r in the image of the Creator, we r not to kill, we r not to worship ourselves and other false gods. And that's the truth every one needs to know to be really free.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Are you telling me that the Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary is the work of the Devil? Now I know why she's holding a plasma gun..."

    whatever leads us away from the Truth is the work of the devil.

    We can say that he succeeded at least in the west. But he will be defeated forever soon. Since I believe we have entered the last days of the world as we knew it. Well actually it's been a few years already since we have entered what i consider the beginning of the end.

    It's not the end yet since more prophecies need to be accomplished. Like the rise of the anti-Christ.

    Atheism is just a way to clear the field in people's mind so that when supernatural occurs near the end most people will fall for it, for the anti-Christ, even some Christians will fall for the deception.

    Not everything that sounds spiritual or "christians" is Christians. Only int he Bible can somebody know what is a real Christian. Without the Bible people can be manipulated by so called spiritual leaders into falsehood.

    So maybe u r a real atheist, but u have to make sure that the Universe was not created, that the Bible doesn't match reality, u need to study the prophecies and match them with history, u need to investigate what real christians have experienced, why they have changed their ways, u need to investigate what archaeology says regarding the Bible.
    U need to go and ask theologians, scientists, historians, archeaologists, philosophers who hold the Bible for the revealed Word of God.

    When you have done that then maybe you can have enough knowledge to decide for yourself.
    Other than that u will believe in what u want to believe and that might not be the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hmmm, c'est trés intéressant, David. But I've already sold my soul to Darwin.

    Drop me a line if you're ever in Vienna, and the drinks are on me.

    Au revoir, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  16. Merci Zilch, Austria looks like a very beautiful place to visit. I love pastries and i know you have great ones ;)

    Actually I am going to Luzern next year to visit some family it's not too far from Austria. One day I'll visit.

    If I were you I wouldn't sell anything to Darwin. Especially when it can't be observed neither in the geologic column or in laboratories other than variations.

    So please consider to investigate what the Bible claims. it could take you some years but eventually if you r a truth seeker u should, u need to consider all possibilities, life is too short, we die one day sooner or later, and we can't gamble with our lives, there's too much at stake.

    The world is trying to tell us, life is good, and I get the feeling that the spirit of the world tries to make us forgetful of the fact we die. We r so into virtual worlds, like TV, that we don't think that we die at some point. But it's the reality.

    Are you ready to die?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Josh wrote:
    Huh.



    While 'brevity is the soul of wit', I think you need to be a tiggy bit more verbose if you really want a meaningful response.

    ReplyDelete
  18. To be honest, that's about the most I could muster for David. "Huh" is about the only way I could type an exhale.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Josh,

    I understand what I wrote looks a little weird. But that's what I believe. I don't believe that the realty is limited to 3 dimensions and the 5 senses.

    I believe the Bible is the Truth on the Reality. Even though it's not complete truth, meaning it doesn't reveal us everything about the Reality, we will have to wait to ask God all the questions we have.

    Whether you believe it or not, there's an ongoing war between Evil and Good. The master of all evil is Satan aka Lucifer. He has lots of followers. Lots of important people, politicians, celiebreities, army people, doctors, lawyers etc... worship him. This is called Satanism. But Satan is also incredibly intelligent and attractive. He has infiltrated (with his legions of fallen angels) Christianity. He tried everything to destroy the Bible, but now his plan is to make humanity think there's no such thing as Satan and demons.

    People invoke so called dead spirits, while actually those are demons impersonating the dead. Lots of Christians practice this. But that's forbidden by God.

    You see Satan and his servants try to be on many fields to divide and delude people into falsehood and astray from Jesus Christ. Jesus is the cornerstone. That's why he is so much hated. Don't you wonder why people keep attacking Christianity (the Bible based Christianity)?

    Why not attack Hindus gods? Well because Jesus has power over all. Everyone is subdued to him whether angels or demons.

    Satan still believe he can conquer and win over Jesus. He and his servants think Jesus will return but will let the Earth to Satan. This is what Satanists believe. For them it's just like politics. Some support God others Satan.

    That's not so. Satan will get as many people as he can, because he doesn't want to be alone in his perdition.

    Jesus will return but not before the son of perdition has appeared. And to me it seems humanity is ready for this absolute blasphemer.

    Look at the media. It's quite shocking to see all the filth. And I am still young I am used to it. But now it seems hell has broken loose. No morals nothing of value, nothing Godly is shown. Just plain lust and fleshly desires.

    People boast about themselves, all that matters is the looks, is the money, the car u drive, things that r not eternal and that u will not bring with u in the tomb.

    Now humanity is ready to worship someone who will worship himself and claim to be God.

    When this happen you will know that u shouldn't follow him, and u should stop sinning (this u have to stop now). only Jesus delivers from our sinful nature. we r all sinners at birth.

    It's the mysterious plan of our Creator. He took flesh to be able to offer him as the ultimate sacrifice to take on all our sinful nature.

    Instead of sacrificing animals now the ultimate sacrifice has delivered us. We only need to ask for forgiveness and accept this sacrifice as our redemption.

    From that moment on, Satan did everything to establish his kingdom, that will culminate soon.

    People have to wake up now, before they r seduced by him. It's not too late.

    It sounds urgent because it is. I think time is running out, that's why i am writing, even tho it sounds crazy to you, when this happen u will know. And u will need a Bible next to you to read all about it.

    'There will be ... dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves' (Lk 21.25)

    'The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. Men were scorched with fierce heat ...' (Rev 16.8,9)

    'The earth will be completely laid waste ... the earth mourns and withers, the world fades and withers...'(Isa 24.3,4)

    http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/end_times.htm

    I encourage you to study what you criticize.

    ReplyDelete
  20. David- you sound like a nice guy, so I will be serious. I studied upper-division paleontology at UC Berkeley (while majoring in music), spent hundreds of hours in labs, and went on many field trips. This was some years ago, but I have followed recent developments with lots of reading. So I can say that I have a pretty good education in evolutionary theory, and I doubt you can show me anything that would cause me to doubt the big picture (details are always subject to revision): it happened.

    I admit, I don't know the Bible as well as I do evolution, but I'm pretty well-read for an atheist: I've read the KJV a couple of times through, and parts of it quite a lot. I've also read the Luther Bibel, parts of online concordances, and am now reading the Wycliffe Bible (middle English). And I'm open to truth: if God is out there, I'll believe in Him. But so far, I haven't seen any sign of Him, and I've seen lots of signs that people make up religions, and gods, all the time. So I remain a skeptic, until such time as I see evidence.

    If you do come to Austria, I know a good Patisserie Viennoise I can take you to.

    cheers, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Zilch,

    Thanks for the invitation :)

    I read a book written by Prothero (forgot his full name), and it is an evolutionist book. I was quite the surprise to the admissions he made. It was something like "there's no sign of gradualism in the fossil record". Like what Gould and Eldredge said.

    So if no gradualism in in the fossil record it mean that what would have been the best proof for Darwinism is not present.

    That's all it means. For me evolution is a big lie. When I was a kid I couldn't believe smart people believed it. To me it was obvious it was the atheist Genesis.

    Living organisms do vary that's a fact and Darwin spotted that but he was not the first.

    He extrapolated to the point that he thought all life had a common ancestor. All life has lots of common denominators, like atoms, molecules, proteins, cells etc... and the basic common denominator is that they were designed by a Greater Intelligence out of atomic reality.

    I ma glad to hear that u r still open to the possibility of God existence, but that's not enough.

    You need to repent from your sins that have put u away from His Love. And only Jesus Christ the messiah foretold in the Torah Prophecies is the one to reconnect us with Him.

    Unfortunately there's no equation or computer simulation that I can show you to prove it to you.

    Sometimes you need to let go and like child ask simply to God to show you the Truth. If He exists then He will answer as He has done through centuries to millions of lives.

    If He doesn't answer then forget about it all. Remember you need to be sincere, God knows when u r sincere or not.

    U say people make up gods, I would reply yes and no. Some people r influenced by demonic spirits that take the form of different things.
    I doubt people really make up from scratch things like gods (which r demons impersonating anything they want) or visions of entities.

    It's not really made up i think. But the santa claus for sure is good example of a made up fantasy.

    But the Bible is so much more. it has factual history backed up by archaeology, fulfilled prophecies, hymns, poetry, it tells it like it is. It's not meant to please us.

    If it was indeed a man made book, then it would tell us sin is good. What man would write that sex before marriage is a sin? I think if it was man made it would glorify man and not some unseen God.

    I think the Bible is to crude to be considered a fairy tale. It's not a fairy tale at all. It doesn't flatter man. It shows us our true colors.

    Anyway, it's up to each of us to study what it says and to open our heart to Jesus. I think i would sum it up like that.

    Jesus said we need to become like a child and have the faith of a child to enter the kingdom of God. I think that's true. Children r not so complicated like us adults. They have a more trusting nature, they r more easily convinced by the truth.

    I pray you discover that Jesus is the only path to salvation from your sinful nature (we all have one). And that it's not by sight or intellect that u will be saved.

    At least it's not too much to ask Jesus directly, like a child. If He exist He will answer.

    Why would spirits answer and not Jesus? His answer will transform you in a way that you can not understand right now. he will not move things around in your room like demons and you might not hear His voice but his Holy Spirit will dwell in you once you have let go of your resistance.

    Here is the testimony of an ex-atheist:

    http://www.ex-atheist.com/from-skepticism-to-worship.html

    "I was a devout atheist for over twenty years. In July of 1998, I finally managed to see the biblical truths that had managed to elude me. The following is an account of how I went from hardcore skepticism to hardcore worship of the Savior, Jesus Christ."

    Anyway I pray you will open your heart to Jesus when he knocks on your door. It's the most important thing to accept in this little lifetime we have.

    Patisserie Viennoise, hmm it's been a while i didn't have any LOL

    I live in Avignon in Provence, it's lovely, at least the surroundings. I don't know if we have any specialties...nothing to compare with Vienne for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  22. BTW I am suprised u didn't insult me, and I appreciate your kind tone. :)

    Usually debating with atheists is always stressful and it quickly becomes insulting and it unhealthy i think. After a while I stop debating because it goes nowhere. Both parties will remain on their positions. At least I write for other readers more open-minded.

    So good to have a normal dialogue that is respectful.

    When i talk about atheism i really talk about the philosophy (which is evil) and not the persons who hold it even though I am less tender with people who i believe r just fake atheists like Richard Dawkins. I have no proof for that assertion, but to me it doen't make sense that he is spending his all life criticizing and insulting the Bible (the Holy Word of God, Jesus and the real Christians). I don't get it. Why doesn't he go about and insult Hinduism, Buddhism or anything that we can't see? are there any books attacking the belief in fairies? I don't think so. If really Christianity was just wishful thinking then there would be nothing to be feared.
    Why not let Christians have their cult and let it fade away with time as society gets more secularized?

    It's because, IMO, Christianity is disturbing. Even demon-possesed people can't say Jesus without a lot of efforts, because the entity prevents the person from saying it.
    Jesus has real power over the darkness, and ex-occultists/spiritists/satanists can testify it.

    see a live demon possesed woman on radio (if that's genuine)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uq7CSGBKpM

    I talk a lot about demons and Satan, because sometimes we forget that they r real. Without Satan the world would not make sense. If there was only God, then we would be right to ask, why all the evil going on?

    but yes God is all powerful, and he is allowing Satan (which at first was a mighty being but then rebelled) to seduce and have limited dominion on humanity.

    Well sorry for always expanding myself. But I just try to explain some things about what I believe. And this is biblical.

    Some people correct me if i say unbiblical things. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi David,

    That's my favourite theme in discussion on DTE: first gradualism, and when you insist that tree of life actually has no trunk in fossil record - punctual equilibrium which openly states that there's no hard evidence in fossil record for macroevolution.

    While I mostly agree on your religious views I don't think that's the way you will convince anyone.
    Our debaters already know what you say, they just don't belive it to be true. Repeating it all the time won't help.

    ReplyDelete
  24. David "I have no proof for that assertion, but to me it doen't make sense that he (Dawkins) is spending his all life criticizing and insulting the Bible (the Holy Word of God, Jesus and the real Christians). I don't get it."
    It's because he's a zoologist. If he was a mathematician, he'd have never heard of terms like "YEC", "Creation science" or "ID", because nobody is trying to push Bible math on math class.

    "Why doesn't he go about and insult Hinduism, Buddhism or anything that we can't see?"
    Because, aside from a couple of Islamic creationists, the major force behind the de-sciencing of science is Christian-centric.

    "Why not let Christians have their cult and let it fade away with time as society gets more secularized?"
    Well, things like this, the push to get bible tales in science class, the push against sex-ed/contraception/family planning, the push against gay marriage (and against "the gays" in general), the push towards "End Times", the push towards taxpayer funded "faith-based" programs, etc, etc. If it was just a cult that regulated its own people, I would be okay with it, but it tries to regulate everyone else, too.

    "Without Satan the world would not make sense. If there was only God, then we would be right to ask, why all the evil going on?"
    Try the universe without either of them. "Shit happens" isn't as comforting as "It's God's plan", or "He loves you so much that He's testing you by giving your child cancer", but it fits much better. No mental gymnastics required.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Tremor,

    I didn't write to convince Zilch, I was just restating what i read from an evolutionist book.

    I know people won't be convinced like that. I don't think arguments are enough. You need revelation.

    And I know skeptics will not be convinced easily. At least my goal is to show that Christianity is reasonable and logical.

    For me evolution is a big lie based on the wrong interpretation of the evidences.

    The Bible states there was a cataclysmic catastrophe know as the Deluge back in early history.

    What do we see in geology, sediments, creatures being rapidly entrapped in sediments, folded strata etc... who can deny that?

    At least the Bible doesn't contradict the evidence.

    But then that might not convinced any skeptics. And it would be pretentious to think my arguments can convince anyone. I wish they did but it ain't so. Because after a while you can have the best case for Christianity and still not believe in it with your heart.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dear Modus,

    "It's because he's a zoologist. If he was a mathematician, he'd have never heard of terms like "YEC", "Creation science" or "ID", because nobody is trying to push Bible math on math class."

    Creationnists are not pushing Creationnism in public schools. They want pupils to be taught the real face of ToE.
    Also ToE has nothing to do with emprirical science students should learn.

    It belongs to philosophy class.
    But in philosophy class Theism should be taught as well. And all argument s for and against all major thinking without taking a side. It has to let students make up their minds and let them choose.

    "Because, aside from a couple of Islamic creationists, the major force behind the de-sciencing of science is Christian-centric."

    Your argument is very weak. Please show me where Christianity leads to de-sciencing?
    God gave us intelligence, reason, logic, a body to explore this world and discover how it works. So knowing God created he universe won't tell you how a tree functions.

    "the push to get bible tales in science class, the push against sex-ed/contraception/family planning, the push against gay marriage (and against "the gays" in general), the push towards "End Times", the push towards taxpayer funded "faith-based" programs, etc, etc. If it was just a cult that regulated its own people, I would be okay with it, but it tries to regulate everyone else, too."

    Oh yeah family planning is so great! their job is to stop humans to procreate. A command of God. We are here to fill the earth. Family planning has an evil agenda. Why do they want women to get abortions. As if it was something innocent. Babies whether in the womb or outside are individuals and no it's not women's choice to choose whether those separate individuals has a right to live or die.

    Why r u so much for abortion?? why is everybody so much for it? This is beyond my comprehension. You see atheism leads to the total destruction of values.

    Gay marriage is wrong for the sole fact that God created man and woman. is it hard to understand?? It doesn't work like you would like it to work. Why would gay want to get married. It's strictly between a man and a woman. It will have to be called differently then. But this is not what God planned for humanity, and family.

    Family is the core of our society and our well being. It's the fertile ground where children should be able to grow into well balanced and happy individuals. People need a female and male parents for their inner sexual image. well most families are dysfunctionnal, but it mas not meant to be so.

    Moreover gay lifestyle is quite frivolous so why get married? What's the point for them anyway. It's not me to judge their desires, but we can't change what God has intended. Humanity will reap the consequences. Look at Sodome and Gomorah. It was destroyed because of all the filth practice. But our society has surpassed in filthiness .

    I'm aware it's not going to convince you, because once you forsake God, anything is possible, so if i were an atheist I would see no problem with whatever others want to do.

    "Try the universe without either of them. "Shit happens" isn't as comforting as "It's God's plan", or "He loves you so much that He's testing you by giving your child cancer", but it fits much better. No mental gymnastics required."

    I never said the things u think i think. I don';t think like that. God allows trials and bad things to happen. He died for us. He suffered for us. As long as this world exist it will groans, and we will not escape the sufferings.

    A universe without God leads to nowhere. As you can see around you in the media, and that's just the tip of the iceberg if God didn't exist. All hell would break loose.


    I hope it made some sense to you. That's a bold position. And it will not prevail, society will be more and more decadent anyway. But Christians have to retain Gods commandments.

    ReplyDelete
  27. “We are atheists and we just wanted to say, ‘Happy Monkey.’”

    ReplyDelete
  28. David wrote: "Usually debating with atheists is always stressful and it quickly becomes insulting and it unhealthy i think. After a while I stop debating because it goes nowhere. Both parties will remain on their positions. At least I write for other readers more open-minded."

    Well then, it's important to remember exactly who you're discussing things with, and to never confuse atheism with anti-theism. The non-believers that frequent this blog, as far as I can tell, are atheists; simply lacking the same set of beliefs that you and I have as theists. It doesn't make them inherently bad people by any means...and I'd wager that we all believe, no matter what side of the fence you're initially on, in living and letting live.

    On the other hand it's the anti-theists you need to avoid getting into discussions with. Like the Bible-thumpers we (unfortunately) have in our camp, anti-theists are about infringing upon your rights and your liberties and your personal set of beliefs. If you lump atheists in with them, then you're no better than the anti-theists themselves.

    Even though I only lurk about 99% of the time around here, I think it's safe to say that you're going to have some cool dialogue with both the religious and non-religious folks alike in these parts. Just remember: atheism does not equal anti-theism, and you should do fine. :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. "“We are atheists and we just wanted to say, ‘Happy Monkey.’”"

    And a Very Merry Chimp to you too :-)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi Lou,

    "Well then, it's important to remember exactly who you're discussing things with, and to never confuse atheism with anti-theism. The non-believers that frequent this blog, as far as I can tell, are atheists; simply lacking the same set of beliefs that you and I have as theists. It doesn't make them inherently bad people by any means...and I'd wager that we all believe, no matter what side of the fence you're initially on, in living and letting live. "

    ok. I understand what you mean. I don't consider atheists as bad people, but i do consider atheism as bad philosophy and dangerous to a human well being.

    "Bible-thumpers"

    What do u mean by Bible Thumpers? Someone who believes in the innerancy of the Bible? I do.

    But usually anti-theists are atheists no?
    atheists often anti-theists. Even though they act like they r the defenders of reasons, they r very against God.

    So i'd rather call non-anti theists atheists skeptics then. Who r moe open minded and not necessarily waging war on Christians. Something like that :)

    But i am not here to criticize individuals only the philosophy once again. Except maybe the likes of Richard Dawkins hehe.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Apropos methinks.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistactivism/a/ChristmasSign.htm?nl=1

    ReplyDelete
  32. David "Creationnists are not pushing Creationnism in public schools. They want pupils to be taught the real face of ToE."
    And after smearing ToE with stuff like this, aw heck, they've got the answer right there in their pocket: magic!

    "Also ToE has nothing to do with emprirical science students should learn."
    If Creationists actually read stuff about ToE, instead of the Genesis Flood (or in addition to it), then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. This too, because a literal, worldwide flood didn't happen (and Man and dinosaurs didn't co-exist, and a family of eight didn't build a really big boat to save most of the animals from the flood that didn't happen, and...).

    "And all argument s for and against all major thinking without taking a side."
    Even astronomy? Chemistry? Where does the woo end?

    "Please show me where Christianity leads to de-sciencing?"
    Here, here, basically everywhere these guys appear, like here.

    "Oh yeah family planning is so great!"
    Good. We're in agreement.

    "their job is to stop humans to procreate."
    Oh. I spoke too soon. Um, no. Their job is to help people choose when they sprout little ones.

    "A command of God. We are here to fill the earth."
    Are we all supposed to be like the Duggars? How many is enough? Arms length from each other? Shoulder to shoulder?

    "Family planning has an evil agenda."
    And they're holding the world hostage for...one million dollars!

    "Why r u so much for abortion?? why is everybody so much for it?"
    I'm not for it. I'm for it being safe, legal and rare. We've got quite a ways to go. Making it illegal just knocks of the first two, and comes with the bonus of dead poor women in alleys, as we find in such fine, upstandingly Christian nations as Chile, Nicaragua & El Salvador. Wealthier women, of course, can just hop a border.

    "You see atheism leads to the total destruction of values."
    Well, we are in the End Times, right? Right? While we're on the subject, my atheist calendar says that tomorrow I'm due for a good raping and pillaging. Afterwards, I'll make s'mores!

    "Gay marriage is wrong for the sole fact that God created man and woman. is it hard to understand?"
    Actually, Man came from earlier not-Man. God may have done that bit at the beginning, but it appears that He did a bang up job of making the cosmic machine run quite well on its own.

    "Why would gay want to get married."
    For the same reasons as everybody else.

    "It will have to be called differently then"
    So, separate but equal then. Unless you're in a country like Canada, which discovered that the worst thing gay marriage leads to is gay divorce.

    "Family is the core of our society and our well being."
    You do know that you won't have to marry a homo, right? Your family will still be a family. Gay families will just have the legal and tax advantages of marriages. They're already married, just without the word. They've already got families, too.

    "People need a female and male parents for their inner sexual image."
    Oh, won't somebody think about the children! Also, kids adopted by "the gays" turn out about the same as the rest of us. The deciding factors are love and competence, not complementary sex organs.
    And if the Christians really believed what you said, then Prop 8 would've been to ban divorce. Mote, meet beam.

    "Moreover gay lifestyle is quite frivolous so why get married?"
    That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with there. Remind me to tell the lesbian I work with just how frivolous she is.

    "Look at Sodome and Gomorah. It was destroyed because of all the filth practice"
    Gays getting married is the opposite of Sodom and Gomorah. Weddings in Vegas, now that, in the very least, is Gomorah-ish.

    "But our society has surpassed in filthiness."
    Speak for yourself. Perv.

    "because once you forsake God,
    I never forsaked (forsoke? forsooked?) God. I just haven't seen any real evidence for an interventionalist one, and the purported evidence appears distinctly anecdotal (and varies greatly by region, to the point that people from other places experience completely different gods).

    "...anything is possible"
    No. What is, is.

    "and that's just the tip of the iceberg if God didn't exist. All hell would break loose."
    Like Scandinavia! It's a madhouse over there. A madhouse!

    "But i am not here to criticize individuals only the philosophy once again. Except maybe the likes of Richard Dawkins hehe."
    I'd have thought you'd pick Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins is pretty tame. Even Hitchens is tame compared to the rhetoric from some Christian circles. Hitchens is just grumpy.

    ...

    Orandath & adonais: And a very happy bonobo New Year to you both.

    ReplyDelete
  33. modus, you crack me up..

    In fact this whole topic does.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Adonis: it's even better if you use the power of a dirty mind on the post's title.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Aw this rocks so much I have to cross-post it: Happy Monkey theme song.

    That settles it - I'm going to reinvent my life. For the rest of the year, I won't say another word about atheism.

    From now on I'm going to be the Happy Monkey thread-derailer instead!

    ReplyDelete
  36. adonais and mo: what you said. And a very hippo chimpmess to you too! For some reason, though, the Happy Monkey Theme Song is not available in Austria. Is it critical of the Hapsburgs, or what?

    David: as I said, I know a fair amount about evolution already, including the kind of objections that you quote. Adonais and M.O. obviously do too. If you want to debate us on the issues, you will have to do more than quote people pointing at the holes, real or imagined, in the theory of evolution: you will have to do some studying yourself, and not just at creationist websites. A good place to start is TalkOrigins, where they have answers from scientists to all the criticisms you cite.

    You say:

    Sometimes you need to let go and like child ask simply to God to show you the Truth. If He exists then He will answer as He has done through centuries to millions of lives.

    [...]

    So maybe u r a real atheist, but u have to make sure that the Universe was not created, that the Bible doesn't match reality, u need to study the prophecies and match them with history, u need to investigate what real christians have experienced, why they have changed their ways, u need to investigate what archaeology says regarding the Bible.
    U need to go and ask theologians, scientists, historians, archeaologists, philosophers who hold the Bible for the revealed Word of God.


    David, I've been there, and I've done that. The Bible is full of mistakes, and I don't know any scientists who believe in its literal truth. And I've asked God to show me the truth. So far, what God has given me is fossils.

    So you're in Avignon? Nice town. And you had your own Pope for a while! Are you French? If so, your English is very good.

    Lou Gojira and David: while I sometimes lapse into sarcasm, I only do it when the people I'm talking with have done the same and are obviously not listening anyway. I believe in answering respect with respect. This goes for my daily life, of course, too. I figure that I am not going to convert the planet to atheism, and that's not the important thing anyway: what is important to me is how people behave, not what they believe.

    ReplyDelete
  37. David wrote: "What do u mean by Bible Thumpers? Someone who believes in the innerancy of the Bible? I do."

    No...I'm talking about people who seem to think that if anything in life is even semi-enjoyable, then odds are the devil is behind it, so then they take it upon themselves to try and get it banned or heavily regulated for everybody else. For instance, I read an article in a Christian newspaper last week that talked about the "evils" of horror films, and how watching these films desensitized people to real world violence and in-turn sort of created the will to commit violent acts. Yeah, I thought it sounded ridiculous too...so I'd say that the person who wrote that article, in my opinion anyway, is a Bible-thumper. They tend to make mountains out of mole hills, being more interested in pushing dogma rather than trying to have meaningful dialogue with anybody who might disagree.

    "But usually anti-theists are atheists no?
    atheists often anti-theists. Even though they act like they r the defenders of reasons, they r very against God.


    Therein lies a problem we all can face if we're not careful...for that matter extremists that bomb abortion clinics or commit suicide bombings are sometimes motivated for religious reasons, but that doesn't automatically make every Christian or every Muslim a potentially dangerous person. Likewise, some of the most blood-thirsty dictators in history were atheists...but that doesn't put blood on the hands of every atheist in society either.

    In other words, you're going to have both the good and the bad on each side of the fence, no matter if it comes to theological matters, political, racial, or whatever the case may be. That's why I think it's important to avoid painting folks with with generalizing brushes, because no one institute of thought is completely guilt-free of bad acts.

    "So i'd rather call non-anti theists atheists skeptics then. Who r moe open minded and not necessarily waging war on Christians. Something like that :)"

    Whatever works for you...just so long as you realize the differences between the two. You'll save yourself a lot of headaches. :)

    "But i am not here to criticize individuals only the philosophy once again. Except maybe the likes of Richard Dawkins hehe."

    Speaking of which, I finally got my hands on a free copy of The God Delusion...a girl at work gave it to me as a gift...I'm about three chapters into it, and if Dawkins is wanting to convert anybody, he's going to have to try a whole lot harder than he's done so far...but that's probably a whole separate discussion for another time.

    ReplyDelete
  38. zilch wrote: "Lou Gojira and David: while I sometimes lapse into sarcasm, I only do it when the people I'm talking with have done the same and are obviously not listening anyway. I believe in answering respect with respect. This goes for my daily life, of course, too. I figure that I am not going to convert the planet to atheism, and that's not the important thing anyway: what is important to me is how people behave, not what they believe."

    Exactly...same here. :)

    As long as systems of belief exist, you're going to have people who don't buy into certain systems of belief. That's inevitable, but as long as folks can just get along and respect each others' rights to believe what they want, then that's all we can realistically ask for.

    ReplyDelete
  39. HI Modus,

    "And after smearing ToE with stuff like this, aw heck, they've got the answer right there in their pocket: magic!"

    So that's all you read about the problems in evolution? You don't need to go into ID to see the problems simple observation and reasoning will work.

    "If Creationists actually read stuff about ToE, instead of the Genesis Flood (or in addition to it), then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. This too, because a literal, worldwide flood didn't happen (and Man and dinosaurs didn't co-exist, and a family of eight didn't build a really big boat to save most of the animals from the flood that didn't happen, and...)."

    You just showed me you don't know much about Creationism and where scientists who believe that the universe was created come from.

    Yes the Deluge happened, look around you, even as a kid while sitting on a rock i could see shells encrusted, and I thought that indeed the the earth was covered by the sea. Yeshua said that in the end times scoffers will deny there ever was a Deluge. You just proved Him right. The Flood changed the surface of the earth and climate dramatically.

    We are all related on this planet and we all descend from the same group of people who survived the Flood.

    Anyway... I don't really take you seriously now, at least you didn't show any acquaintance in the things you criticize...

    "Even astronomy? Chemistry? Where does the woo end?"

    I meant philosophies, afaik those r empirical sciences and not philosophies.

    "Here, here, basically everywhere these guys appear, like here."

    You failed to show where this leads to de-sciencing. We might not talking about the same thing then.

    I suspect for you science is national education? Well you can be a genius without going to national school.

    You failed once more to prove your case...

    "Their job is to help people choose when they sprout little ones."

    it's mostly preventing people from procreating. It's a eugenicist organization launched by one of the evil Rockefeller I think.

    "? How many is enough? Arms length from each other? Shoulder to shoulder?"

    That's nobody's business and certainly not the government's. Earth is vast there's enough room. Countries see their demographics diminish anyway and getting old.
    What needs to be improved is urban planning, you can't have millions of people in one place, that's not healthy.

    "I'm not for it. I'm for it being safe, legal and rare"

    It's a crime, and shouldn't be done. It should be forbidden, and on the other hand women who can't take care or who don't wan their babies should be able to give them away to have them adopted. No need to resort to murder. Our society should not condemn women who don't want their babies so that they will feel safe to give them away.

    A lot of adopted people who never knew their parents live good lives.

    "my atheist calendar says that tomorrow I'm due for a good raping and pillaging. Afterwards, I'll make s'mores!"

    I never said atheists r immoral. Atheism is. If you really follow it then there's no escape to nihilism.

    "Actually, Man came from earlier not-Man."

    Lie. How do u know?

    "God may have done that bit at the beginning"

    It's not what the Bible says. Why would He have done that? Where r the in-between stages? No where. There's an unbridgeable gap between the animal kingdom and humans, and that's a fact. We r the reflection of YWHW. We can create, we can sing, we can think, we can imagine.

    "You do know that you won't have to marry a homo, right? Your family will still be a family. Gay families will just have the legal and tax advantages of marriages. They're already married, just without the word. They've already got families, too."

    You don't understand that it's against God's command. Of course if God doesn't exist then nothing really matters so who cares 2 men marry.

    Why not forbid any marriage then? If God doesn't exist then let's abolish this act of marriage for everyone since it's religious.

    "The deciding factors are love and competence, not complementary sex organs."

    The deciding factor is God's law. And genitals prove beyond a doubt that homosexual act is not what God intended.

    "then Prop 8 would've been to ban divorce"

    Well Jesus said divorce was allowed by Moses because of our weakness. But God didn't intended divorce.

    ". Remind me to tell the lesbian I work with just how frivolous she is."

    She might tell u it's none of your business.

    "Gays getting married is the opposite of Sodom and Gomorah"

    the homosexual act is sin. once again God is the final Decider not humans. Otherwise let's rewrite all the rules and have our own commandments, which well society has almost done that already.

    "Speak for yourself. Perv."

    LOL. well we r all born sinners, but Jesus saves us.

    For an atheist nothing should be pervert at all, everything should be natural right?

    "and the purported evidence appears distinctly anecdotal "

    Anedoctical? Well when I look around me I see the proof God exists. When I look at ants for example, how they work and all, and other very complex systems found everywhere in nature, i can only think of God.

    Of course the lie of Evolution is meant to destroy this normal deduction.

    "Like Scandinavia! It's a madhouse over there. A madhouse!"

    why is it a madhouse?

    "I'd have thought you'd pick Christopher Hitchens"

    Dawkins is the most famous.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Zilch,

    "you will have to do some studying yourself, and not just at creationist websites. A good place to start is TalkOrigins, where they have answers from scientists to all the criticisms you cite."

    I did. And i ma certainly not debate this here. Internet has many websites about the problems in ToE. And i know it's useless to debate with evolutionists because nothing will change their mind.

    All i can say is that the grand materialist story of life is not proven at all. No fossils, no lab experiments, no observations prove this assertion.

    And it undermines the truth of history.

    "Bible is full of mistakes, and I don't know any scientists who believe in its literal truth. And I've asked God to show me the truth. So far, what God has given me is fossils."

    there r indeed mistakes done by copyists. But nothing major that undermines the understanding. Some passages are unclear too. But the overall message is quite clear.
    And if you have questions then I encourage you to pay a visit to some websites like:

    http://www.apologetics.org/
    http://www.williamlanecraig.com/
    http://www.answersingensis.org
    http://www.tektonics.org/

    "So you're in Avignon? Nice town. And you had your own Pope for a while! Are you French? If so, your English is very good.
    "


    Yeah Popes and a giant "Virgin Mary" in gold overlooking the city (quite creepy). I am not fond of that at all. It's not real Christianity.

    Yes I am French. I learned english at school but leaving 2 years in San Diego helped a lot, also I read so much in english that now i can say i am fluent. :)

    And you u speak french or something. R u American?

    ReplyDelete
  41. For Zilch,

    The blasphemous so called "Virgin Mary" our Notre-Dame:

    http://yeinjee.com/travel/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/avignon-notre-dame-des-doms.jpg

    http://yeinjee.com/travel/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/avignon-notre-dame-des-doms-virgin.jpg

    quite spooky to me.
    Notice "she" has 12 stars surrounded her head like the European flag.

    ReplyDelete
  42. David "Anyway... I don't really take you seriously now, at least you didn't show any acquaintance in the things you criticize..."
    Wait. You're talking about all mankind descending from one family of eight people who survived a literal, worldwide flood (circa 2348BC)...and you're not taking me seriously?
    You, sir, are adorable. I just want to put you in my pocket to keep you warm and safe from the cold, cold world.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Modus,

    "You, sir, are adorable. I just want to put you in my pocket to keep you warm and safe from the cold, cold world."

    That was funny, and I appreciate u want to protect me LOL.

    U can calculate human population here:
    http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php

    ReplyDelete
  44. i used a growth rate of 0.01023 and start date is 0, end date is 2008. start population size is 8.

    I obtained:

    Population in 2008 = 6,011,385,938

    ReplyDelete
  45. "i used a growth rate of 0.01023 and start date is 0, end date is 2008. "

    Oh, boy. Fun with math! With someone whose apparently a YEC (or some variant thereof).

    ...
    Read at least the first couple of books that I linked here, and this (which is old, but then so is the argument). They're better at giving and explaining data (from ToE to no Deluge) than I ever could be. People say that I'm easily distra...There's cake in my fridge! Hurrah!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Modus,

    I read that one Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

    and can't believe it's u consider it a good source for information. Even the author admits the fossil record doesn't show gradualism but he goes on as if everything was ok.

    This book reassured me in my confidence that evolution is a farce.

    My favorite illustration is the scallop shell "evolution", wow! such a powerful proof of evolution in front of my eyes. Different scallop shells with different numbers of edges.

    I have to admit I laughed. I don't think paleontologists are the ones who understand the real ToE correctly. They have their own ToE that is different from biologists I think. At least Prothero showed that he didn't really understand it.

    Most of the book is anti-creationist. this doesn't help his cause. He didn't show evolution happened, he just showed variations in species.

    So...

    ReplyDelete
  47. and yes i am a YEC. I believe creation is no more than 6,000 years old. And nothing would change my mind. At first I believed the Universe might be billions of years (i went to national school so i was brain washed into the evolution thing, even tho i didn't believe it, i comprised with thinking that maybe the universe was indeed billions of years old).

    It sounds weird to say the Earth is only 6,000 years old after years of brainwashing, and fairy tales tv reconstructions. But that's part of the truth Satan wants to conceal to humanity. Whether you believe it doesn't matter because you r not aware of spiritual battles.

    ReplyDelete
  48. David "and can't believe it's u consider it a good source for information."
    I haven't read it, actually. It's somewhere in the stack of books that I've bought but haven't gotten around to yet. Amusingly, I only just discovered that I managed to buy not one but two different books on Dover.

    "Even the author admits the fossil record doesn't show gradualism but he goes on as if everything was ok"
    Gradual like this?
    ...and I meant to correct Tremor earlier, but...
    tremor "first gradualism, and when you insist that tree of life actually has no trunk in fossil record..."
    The "trunk" is probably more of a weave, because single-celled organisms propagate their genes with a wide variety of weird methods (including stealing them from other wee beasties).

    "- punctual equilibrium which openly states that there's no hard evidence in fossil record for macroevolution."
    I don't think that punctuated equilibrium means what you think it means.
    These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. (fm here)

    David "I believe creation is no more than 6,000 years old."
    Good luck with that. You've apparently missed the last few hundred years of looking at stuff. People have looked at quite a lot of stuff in that time. It takes a considerable about of ignoring and twisting to make a 13,600,000,000 year old universe and a 4,500,000,000 year old Earth fit into a clearly obsolete model of the universe that states fairly clearly that it's really 6,000.

    "And nothing would change my mind."
    I've always been amazed at the stuff people will believe when they think eternity is at stake.
    Evolution is reasonably true (yes, there are gaps. ToE predicts where and when to look, and what should fill in the gap). Common descent is true. This is why you have fish genes.

    Note: Mariano, et al. Still think that we atheists are too literal about the Bible?

    "At first I believed the Universe might be billions of years"
    13 point something at last estimate, if memory serves.

    "It sounds weird to say the Earth is only 6,000 years old after years of brainwashing, and fairy tales tv reconstructions."
    Excuse me if this sounds terribly insulting, but that doesn't sound weird. That sounds sad. Congratulations, you've made me sad. Now I have to nest in my quilt, eat comfort food and watch Steel Magnolias.

    "But that's part of the truth Satan wants to conceal to humanity."
    Again, good luck with that.

    "Whether you believe it doesn't matter because you r not aware of spiritual battles."
    Really? I'm quite aware of spiritual battles. Not the ones you mean, probably, but the pull between Man's "I" and "we", amity and enmity, tribe v tribe and the like are powerful, and naturalistic in origin.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well, I take the contrary position.
    (And I dance like a monkey)

    Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions


    Alas, poor Josh!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Modus,

    "I haven't read it"
    don't waste your time then, it's all on the web already and i am sure u r well acquainted with the content.

    "I don't think that punctuated equilibrium means what you think it means. "

    It is what it is:

    Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. from wikipedia.

    If Darwin was right we should have found gradualism in the geologic column. It's not what we found.

    Yes there are so called transitional forms, but u can make any fantasy rearrangement forms and declare they r ancestors. It's not science.

    It's a waste of time in my opinion. It's the fallacy of homology. It's not because things look alike that they share a common ancestor. But studying only skeletons will not help when the rest of the soft parts are missing. cats and dogs look similar in their skeleton but they don't share any ancestors. So you can construct as much as you as the history of ancestries but it will not be possible to prove it for sure.

    Also if forms remain the same for millions years old then there's something wrong with Darwinism. organisms should be bombarded with mutations to allow natural selection to "choose" from. The fossil record doesn't show organisms being mutated (except for illnesses) it doesn't show the billions extinct forms we should expect if evolution was true.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

    http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5543

    "Good luck with that."
    Thanks.
    But don't worry i am fine and i am aware it is shocking or, well, saddening. But no need to be sad really! :)

    On the radiometric dating:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

    It takes a considerable about of ignoring and twisting to make a 13,600,000,000 year old universe and a 4,500,000,000 year old

    I don't twist anything. The presuppositions for calculating those ages are not necessarily correct. It has changed over the years. So how do we know. I think we can't date the age of the Earth.

    I've always been amazed at the stuff people will believe when they think eternity is at stake.

    Hmm it's not because there's eternity that I believe we were created. it's a fact. It's like the sky is blue.

    Evolution is reasonably true
    which evolution, variations like in the Cetaceans, or like in bacteria to man evolution? No one can't prove the latter, so it's not empirical science and belongs to the realm of imagination.

    ToE predicts
    no it doesn't predict anything. It predicts anything so it predicts nothing.

    Common descent is true
    well isn't it what is supposed to be shown and proven and a mechanism found?? it's what we r currently debating.

    This is why you have fish genes.
    or maybe fish have human genes.
    and plants have bee genes.

    Ok Modus have a good one. i wish u have nice dreams of fishy reptiles climbing trees and taking flight while growing fur and returning to the sea to play with flipper.

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  51. When i talk about atheism i really talk about the philosophy (which is evil)

    This touches on an idea that theists often put forth and it is one of my pet peeves. “Atheism” is NOT a philosophy. It is not a worldview, it is not a premise and it is not a religion. Atheism, per se, is just the lack of a belief in deities. This mental state can be reached from a wide variety of different philosophical orientations – many of which are antagonistic with each other.

    The way I view it is to imagine that ‘Life, the Universe, and Everything’ is like a extremely complex jigsaw puzzle. It is made even more complex by the fact that we are a part of the puzzle we are trying to solve and this leads to some tricky problems (see strange loops) but that is not important for this argument. Now each and every one of us has a philosophical perspective toward solving the puzzle – even if that perspective is to just completely ignore the question. Now some think that the way to solve the puzzle is to read old ancient texts, follow traditional religious teachings and to accept those answers on faith. This method is, I think, very deeply flawed (the details can be discussed on some other day.)

    Now, I think that the most effective philosophical position to adopt is in the Naturalism class of philosophies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy). (Just for full disclosure, I happen to be in the metaphysical naturalism school myself.) Now, from a naturalistic perspective we look at ‘Life, the Universe, and Everything’ and what can we conclude: the picture that is formed by the puzzle does not include deities as independent real world entities. That is just a fact we observe about the Universe and is NOT foundational to our worldview.

    If the Universe were different then, based on the very same philosophical perspective, we might come to a different conclusion. If Thor came to your house and help build that deck in the backyard, or if Venus gives you a late night booty call then, sure, the gods exist. But the Universe is not structured that way and the gods just don’t exist.

    ReplyDelete
  52. jdhuey,

    The universe displays specified and complex systems that could only come from intelligence.

    naturalism is wrong.

    lots of people worship Venus and other gods from the ancient times. Those r actually demonic entities.

    Because you have not experienced on another level then the 3D and 5 senses doesn't mean that the majority of people is wrong.

    I can't argue further than that. Nothing will convince you of another realm, or layer part of our Reality.

    If we are here to think and discuss of un-material things, then we're most likely not the product of chance. We are not the product of chance and contingencies. Otherwise we would still be at best molecules.

    ReplyDelete
  53. David wrote:

    The universe displays specified and complex systems that could only come from intelligence.

    And I answered:

    This is an unwarranted conclusion. If you are referring to biological systems here on Earth then there is good evidence that they didn’t come from intelligence. An intelligent designer would have done a better job.

    naturalism is wrong.

    A rather bold assertion. Care to back it up with something specific?

    lots of people worship Venus and other gods from the ancient times. Those r actually demonic entities.

    Really? And, just what was the name of the demon that played the role of Venus?

    Because you have not experienced on another level then the 3D and 5 senses doesn't mean that the majority of people is wrong.

    Nor does it mean that they are right. So, we are exactly back to the point we were before your statement.

    I can't argue further than that. Nothing will convince you of another realm, or layer part of our Reality.

    Now here you are just plain mistaken. I have read many many books of fantasy and science fiction that required me to willingly suspend my disbelief in other realms and layers of our Reality. But since I’ve temporarily and provisionally believed in hundreds of different realms, I would need some actual evidence to pick just one of those realms or layers as actually true. Besides, I do accept Quantum Mechanics as an accurate description of realm of the very very small - and a very strange realm it is. The major difference is that there is good reasons to accept QM.

    ReplyDelete
  54. David "Also if forms remain the same for millions years old then there's something wrong with Darwinism. organisms should be bombarded with mutations to allow natural selection to "choose" from."
    Like the Great White? Do you know why it hasn't really changed in quite a while: Um, have you looked at one? Any deviation away from its already pretty much perfect will make it less so, I assume. Once something has reached the peak of its niche, there's no place to go until the niche changes (whether by new food, new predators, climate change, etc).
    In other words, cool wings or big eyes aren't going to give the Great White an advantage on its hunting grounds...until those grounds change or its pressured to find new places to hunt.

    "On the radiometric dating:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove"

    I'll see your AIG and raise you one talkorigins (which seems to be down at the moment).

    "I don't twist anything. The presuppositions for calculating those ages are not necessarily correct."
    Look at your presuppositions and gaze in wonder when "majik" appears to fill in a rough spot. At least methodological naturalists say "I don't know".

    "It has changed over the years."
    Really? There's a Nobel Prize for Awesome in it for you if you can prove it.

    "So how do we know."
    Why are you asking me? Is that even a question if it doesn't have a question mark on the end.

    "I think we can't date the age of the Earth."
    But you did. 6,000 years. That's way more accurate sounding than the billions and a bit that those sciencey guys came up with (and they keep revising it. You, on the other hand, just have to add one every time New Years comes around).

    "Hmm it's not because there's eternity that I believe we were created. it's a fact. It's like the sky is blue."
    But you're saying that the sky is cheese.

    "which evolution, variations like in the Cetaceans,"
    Variations? From something that walked on land to modern whales is far more than variations. It's speciation. That's evolution, baby.

    "or like in bacteria to man evolution?"
    You want an A-Z? Good luck. There is enough to form a pattern, and you do have leftover genes from your ancestors (go back in Deep Time and those ancestors weren't people. Go back farther and they weren't even mammals).

    "No one can't prove the latter, so it's not empirical science and belongs to the realm of imagination."
    A-Z? No. The farther back you look now for evidence, the less (and the harder to find) it is. We do have big life going back to the Ediacaran (600M years ago). Some of it is pretty weird. Earlier than that gets tough, as there's only the leftovers of remains (no big stuff, no hard stuff), so it's just chemical signatures.
    No try applying the level of granularity that you expect from the naturalistic theory to the supernatural one.

    "no it doesn't predict anything. It predicts anything so it predicts nothing."
    Um. What? Does it predict "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian"? No. Rabbits in that era would be a tough anomaly to un-anomalize.
    It did predict Tiktaalik, and it does predict what should fill other gaps. Oddly, it never predicts divine intervention. Pity. God went through all this work to appear to have not done it at all (and over a much longer scale than He admitted to), and these scientists keep insisting that He's not involved (or that He's not working the way the He said He did).

    "well isn't it what is supposed to be shown and proven and a mechanism found?? it's what we r currently debating."
    Well, I'm having trouble parsing your sentences, but the fact that you have fish genes is a pretty good indicator. Genes and mutation and natural selection (and a few other things, like sexual selection) explain it pretty well.

    "or maybe fish have human genes.
    and plants have bee genes."

    "They didn't get them from me!" I tells the judge. Then he says that my plant/fish love-based lovechild is an abomination. Imagine my outrage!

    "i wish u have nice dreams of fishy reptiles climbing trees and taking flight while growing fur and returning to the sea to play with flipper."
    And may you continue to have dreams about a 6k universe, 'cause that's what they are. Dreams.

    "lots of people worship Venus and other gods from the ancient times. Those r actually demonic entities."
    Or:
    *Some of them are right about their other gods and you're wrong
    *You're all correct (but incorrect about the exclusivity of your god/s/)
    *You're all wrong, and gods are the product of the minds of a social species that's particularly good at problem solving, but has the tendency to ascribe agency to just about everything (the reason the hammer intended to hit your thumb is the same as why Ra ran across the sky).

    On a side note: you're worshiping the demon in disguise. Seriously, I heard it straight from Shiva.

    ReplyDelete
  55. David- yes, I'm an American, but I've been living in Vienna for a long time now. I speak a little French, but alas, je ne parle pas bien. I can read it well enough, though, from knowing Spanish and Latin pretty well.

    As far as your evolution stuff goes, M.O., Adonais, and jdhuey have answered nicely. I'm going to be lazy, because I'm in solstice stress, and leave it at that for now. I'll just say this: no one expects, or predicts, that the fossil record will be perfect. But the fossil record, especially when corroborated by genetic studies, provides a compelling picture: evolution did occur.

    About the age of the Earth: how do you explain the age of starlight reaching the Earth?

    And about your population mathematics: I calculated this out one time, and I will look it up if you like, but the problem with your numbers is twofold:

    One: there's no evidence that population growth has been constant throughout history- actually, there's a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

    Two: if you assume that your numbers are correct, then the total population of the Earth when the Pyramids were built was around 300. Hmmm.

    Happy Solstice everyone! Cheers from Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  56. David,

    I would like to add just one more question to the ones Zilch asked.

    If you assume that the current theory of geologic processes is correct and you assume that evolution is true, just what do you think the fossil record should look like?

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Modusoperandi
    The "trunk" is probably more of a weave, because single-celled organisms propagate their genes with a wide variety of weird methods (including stealing them from other wee beasties).
    Probably? Is there a trunk or there's is not in fossil record? Do we know common ancestors of groups of animals, e.g. man and chimp, man and horse, man and mouse and so on?

    I don't think that punctuated equilibrium means what you think it means.
    I'll put it that way: slow gradual changes leading to new forms of life are not supported by fossil record. The distance between different forms (aka gaps), appearance of new phylas in two major booms seem to be quite radical on entire time scale. My point is that some evolutionists acknowledge that and take as a premise to adjust ToE. This is ilustrated by perpendicular branching in morphology tree in Wikipedia article.

    13,600,000,000 year old universe and a 4,500,000,000
    IOnce during debate a guy wrote: it's good that we know that earth is 4.3 By, another guy said he had thought it was 4.1 and another came with 4.6. But all of them were sure we know earth's age.
    Well, you say it's an estimation, but this estimation is as good as presumptions it holds and I'm 100% those are not unqeustionable. You know, speed of light is not constant, time somehow depends on enigmatic gravity.

    At least methodological naturalists say "I don't know".
    No, it deosn't. It always claims to have the answers as this discussion shows, a scientific consensus. And we can be sure that sooner or later the answers will change.

    From something that walked on land to modern whales is far more than variations. It's speciation. That's evolution, baby.

    Here's na exerpt from TalkOrigins:
    "Pakicetus, is the oldest cetacean, and the first known archaeocete. It
    is from the early Eocene of Pakistan, about 52 million years ago
    (Gingerich and others 1983). Although it is known only from fragmentary
    skull remains, those remains are very diagnostic, and they are
    definitely intermediate between Sinonyxand later whales
    ."
    "A well-preserved cranium shows that Pakicetus was definitely a cetacean
    with a narrow braincase, a high, narrow sagittal crest, and prominent
    lambdoidal crests."
    To bad that Pakicetus appeared to be dog-like creature
    There are fossils and there's an art of interpretation.

    Um. What?
    It did predict Tiktaalik, and it does predict what should fill other gaps.

    Look at what they found and what they deduced from it and praise the power of imagination of almighty evolutionists. Suggested read: One step forward, two steps backward.
    Do I need to remind you what stories were told about Coelacanth before it was found to be living up to date?

    ReplyDelete
  58. tremor "Probably? Is there a trunk or there's is not in fossil record?"
    Now read what I wrote again. Take your time.

    "It always claims to have the answers as this discussion shows, a scientific consensus."
    No. It (or rather, they) shouldn't. It's the best answer, based on what we know so far. As more stuff is discovered, the answer will change (as with the age of the universe, which hops around but never goes back to 6k). Not having the "final" answer is uncomfortable, but it's not bad.

    "And we can be sure that sooner or later the answers will change."
    So...science has been wrong before? Isn't getting closer better than standing still?

    "To bad that Pakicetus appeared to be dog-like creature
    There are fossils and there's an art of interpretation."

    Way to understate the commonality:
    "They have been linked to whales by their ears: the structure of the auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanic bone only. The shape of the ear region in Pakicetus is highly unusual and only resembles the skulls of whales. The feature is diagnostic for cetaceans and is found in no other species." (fm wikipedia)
    Could it be wrong? Yes. Knowing the history of history, will some of the branches move around? Definitely. Is that bad? I certainly hope not.

    "Look at what they found and what they deduced from it and praise the power of imagination of almighty evolutionists."
    And it matches reality.

    "Suggested read: One step forward, two steps backward."
    Oh, boy! A Luskin paper! Hurrah! The gap that isn't as big now is now admitted that it was bigger before. Outrage! And the best part for Luskin is that he can post the same story the next time a gap-filler is found.

    "Do I need to remind you what stories were told about Coelacanth before it was found to be living up to date?"
    Did they mention that local fishermen knew about them the whole time, but the subject never came up because they are greasy and taste bad?

    ReplyDelete
  59. tremor "Probably? Is there a trunk or there's is not in fossil record?"
    Now read what I wrote again. Take your time.

    So, do you think complex organisms like animals could involve more than once from different primitive forms? No single trunk for insects, vertebrates?
    And when did and how all those branches of complex organisms split?

    Could it be wrong? Yes. Knowing the history of history, will some of the branches move around? Definitely. Is that bad? I certainly hope not.
    Is evolution from something that walked on land to modern whales well supported by fossil record?

    "Look at what they found and what they deduced from it and praise the power of imagination of almighty evolutionists."
    And it matches reality.

    From Wikipedia: Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it onto land. Coelacanth could walked as well, couldn't it?
    But this is another important milestone as NYT reports: Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory


    Oh, boy! A Luskin paper! Hurrah! The gap that isn't as big now is now admitted that it was bigger before.
    I like your enthusiasm. Not that there's bias on the other side of the barricade.
    Morphological distance from Tiktaalik (a fish) to Acanthostega (tetrapod) is still quite big.

    And the best part for Luskin is that he can post the same story the next time a gap-filler is found.
    I agree with you here. But this story has two sides: evolutionists will always claim that transitions are documented well enough and can't be too perefect because of the way fossilization occurs.

    @jdhuey
    If you assume that the current theory of geologic processes is correct and you assume that evolution is true, just what do you think the fossil record should look like?
    I'd like to see at least two "lines" of evolution with at least 10 fossils with morphological distance not bigger than 5 changes each. Full skeletons preferred.

    ReplyDelete
  60. When discussing topics like biology, geology, physics or cosmology with a Yec, I’m reminded of the story told by Jared Diamond about an incident in New Guinea. The population in New Guinea lives almost exclusively in highland valleys: the jungles below are extremely dangerous and disease ridden, the mountain tops above are not habitable. So, the people there live and die in an environment enclosed by vegetation and mountainsides – an environment that lacks grand vistas. The consequence of this became apparent when one day Jared decides to explore the higher elevations on the island. He takes one of his friends from the tribe he is staying with and goes exploring. (I don’t remember the friend’s name, so I’ll call him David.) At one point, David points to a group of animals that are grazing in a meadow far below and asks what type of insects are those. When Jared got over his surprise at the question, he tried to explain that those were not insects but just animals seen from a great distance. His New Guinea friend thought that Jared was either crazy or making a joke. David’s limited worldview just didn’t have the tools to correctly deal with size and the unfamiliar concept of large distances.

    No amount of facts or calculation would have been enough to directly convince the New Guinea native that those distant animals were just animals that appeared small and not actually something small. The only way to change David’s mind would be to alter and expand his worldview. Once that is done (and there is no assurance that it can be done), David will be able to see that those tiny images of distant animals are best interpreted as regular size animals seen from a distance and not as very small animals seen close up. In addition, if David is thoughtful enough, not only will he make the correct determination but he will understand why he was wrong before.

    Now, we get to an interesting question: in the discussion at hand, which of us are in the role of Jared Diamond and which of us are in the role of the New Guinea native, David?
    And how can we, as participants in the discussion, decide?

    I’m confident that it is possible to decide but I think I’ll hold off discussing that till later.

    ReplyDelete
  61. By the way, there is always the possibility that the New Guinea native, David, was really just playing a joke on Jared. Many an anthropologist have been hoodwinked by natives playing into the researchers innate since of superiority. So, if that is what is going on here, all I can say to the Young Earth Creationist and Bible literalists, is 'Ok, you got us, funny joke, but enough is enough. Stop joking now, and let's all have a big laugh and get on to other things'.

    ReplyDelete
  62. tremor -

    Skepticism is a good thing, but in your case you seem to have over-applied it to the point where it has warped your understanding of science.

    Science is an error-correcting methodology. You apparently want to focus solely on the "error" part and ignore the "correcting" part. The history of science is replete with false starts, failed experiments and bad ideas - and this will remain so for the foreseeable future. But you know what: it's O.K., because this is how science works. It corrects itself. This is a feature, not a bug. In fact, it's the defining feature of science, that religions lack. And I dare say that when corrections are being made and mistakes discovered, they are discovered and corrected by other scientists, not theologians.

    ReplyDelete
  63. tremor "So, do you think complex organisms like animals could involve more than once from different primitive forms?"
    Sure. They aren't around now (so far as we know...dun dun dun!). We (and everything around us) are the "winners".

    "No single trunk for insects, vertebrates?"
    One trunk, with branches spreading as it rises from Deep Time to the present. Go back far enough, however, and the trunk's "roots" are potentially a mesh of intersecting lines (because of things like horizontal gene transfer).

    "And when did and how all those branches of complex organisms split?"
    When is multiple times past in Deep Time (the phylogenetic tree", which doesn't have that bushy base I mentioned earlier. It's probably in Making of the Fittest. My memory is muddy.)
    How is that every once in a while, God decides to majik up a new species, while on other occasions, He makes a species stop existing. An alternate theory is that He "upgrades" species at times of His choosing. Whether He upgrades entire species, or just outlying groups that due generally to separation by natural obstructions find themselves unable to continue mixing with the other population, is a matter of harsh debate amount methodological supernaturalists.

    "Is evolution from something that walked on land to modern whales well supported by fossil record?"
    Well supported enough for a Creationist? No. It will never be. I doubt that the granularity of the fossil record will never be tight enough to sway a dyed in the wool Creationist (even though the naturalistic theory "fits" it will never fit well enough. It's tough to beat "In the beginning", especially since that one has all of the evidence it needs right there in the first book that God recited to Moses that one time, and a Gish or a Ham can help cover over the weak spots with things that are scientifical). Hopefully the genetic case will help.

    "Coelacanth could walked as well, couldn't it?"
    A bunch of them probably could, with varying degrees of success. It's not fish-s>ingle intermediary->land beastie. It's small changes over generations.

    "But this is another important milestone as NYT reports..."
    And, much like Luskin, they too will get to say that next time. And the time after. And the time after that.
    And so the Circle of Enmity continues.

    "Morphological distance from Tiktaalik (a fish) to Acanthostega (tetrapod) is still quite big."
    And there's no way that we'll ever get the granularity that people (including, it must be said, biologists) want. The gaps will always be there, but they keep getting smaller, not larger.

    "I'd like to see at least two "lines" of evolution with at least 10 fossils with morphological distance not bigger than 5 changes each. Full skeletons preferred."
    Is this close enough? No? Pity. Tyrannosaurs rule! Woo! Go Tryrannosaur!

    jdhuey "Now, we get to an interesting question: in the discussion at hand, which of us are in the role of Jared Diamond and which of us are in the role of the New Guinea native, David?"
    I think that there is more to the story than any of us can see (quantum theory alone shows that, in the very least, it's far weirder than our human minds, which never evolved to deal with the very small, find comfortable. The very large, either, which is partly why a $10,600,000,000,000 debt seems so distant, and why a 6,000 year-old universe is so easy on the senses). I see no need to fill in the knowledge gaps (chasms, in some cases) with majik, besides that it makes some people feel more comfortable to "know" the answers (and that's a piss poor reason to put it in biology class). I see supernatural explanations as trying to explain too much with too little data leading to what is now an obsolete model of the universe and/or our habit of assigning agency to, well, everything (see the cases of Thor v. lightning).

    "So, if that is what is going on here, all I can say to the Young Earth Creationist and Bible literalists, is..."
    ...stop messing with the Board of Education?
    ...stop filling in those surveys that you think everything was created in roughly its present form no more than 10,000 years ago. France isn't laughing with you, they're laughing at you. That's right. France. One of them laughed so hard that coffee with way too much milk came out of his nose. He had to mop it up with his beret.

    ReplyDelete
  64. tremor -

    A second thing, which is a general comment: your obsession with having some sort of "exact" number for the age of the Earth or similar fuzzy events, is not very reasonable. You have to consider what it is that you are asking for. If you ask about the age of the Earth in some exact sense, you have to define the event that counts as the "birth." Of course, there is no such event. The Earth formed gradually by accretion, and if the final accretion phase that left the Earth in its near-spherical shape (let's call this the birth) took something like 100 million years, then it is pointless to ask about the "age of the Earth" with any higher precision than that. You can ask about the ages of particular pieces of rocks with higher precision, if the radiometric dating allows you to. But that's about it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Some time ago there was a Nova episode about an African village that was infested with termites and they threatened the village’s food supply (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3417_ants.html). The show focused on the effort to ‘recruit’ the army ant call Jaglavak, that is known to attack termites. During the course of the show, we see a number of traditional prayers and rituals and ceremonies. Now to my eyes, what I saw was that prayers and rituals were not in and of themselves at all effective but that they formed a way to, shall we say, encode vital survival information. This was necessary because this culture was pre-literate for thousands of years.
    Now we are in the midst of a holiday season that for many includes prayers and rituals. And, again, to my eyes the prayers and rituals are a way to encode some very useful social information. So, even if we disagree as to the underlying reality behind these festivities, let us all celebrate the truly good spirit of this time of year and, perhaps, extend the ideas of kindness, good cheer, and good will toward all through out the year. To you Christians: Merry Christmas. To our Jewish friends: Happy Hanukah. To the Wiccan’s that might be lurking may this Yule time mark the mid-point of a year that brings peace, harmony, love, and increased happiness. To all, I wish a Happy Holiday season and the best to each of us.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Modusoperandi
    One trunk, with branches spreading as it rises from Deep Time to the present.
    So that's the trunk I was talking about, the trunk and basic branches of vertebrates that we miss so much.

    When is multiple times past in Deep Time (the phylogenetic tree",
    But I want to see the names at the splits, not only at leafs.

    Hopefully the genetic case will help.
    I don't want to take away your hope, but it won't.

    "Coelacanth could walked as well, couldn't it?"
    A bunch of them probably could, with varying degrees of success. It's not fish-s>ingle intermediary->land beastie. It's small changes over generations.

    The modern ones don't even walk on the bottom of the sea. And they're not a shallow water fish like they were supposed to be (and tiktaalik is now).

    The gaps will always be there, but they keep getting smaller, not larger.
    Pakicetus left a gap it supposed to fill, Coelacanth did and tiktaalik will if we find a living one. And how many hoaxes are yet to be discovered in man evolution?

    Tyrannosaurs rule!
    This pic is cool! Reminds me of cats family.
    But I was, as usual, not precise. I want examples of transition from one life form to another, gradual development of some novel traits, stuff like that.

    @adonais
    You add another hypothesis and it deosn't help. How do you know it is 100Mys?
    My point is: people claim to know basing on assumptions that are already known that might not work in this case and using methods for which testability and repeatability doesn't apply.

    I wanted to write about bias on both sides, if Donald Johanson would become professor had he found chimp fossils instead of 'missing link', about malachite men, a man dated 3Mya in South America and such, but I don't have a time.

    I'll be away from computer for 3 days now. Instead of wishes few songs:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7VtlhyhcZo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEyYHEJhCk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVIPp6LJ7MU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6ly1j6vKeM

    ReplyDelete
  67. tremor "So that's the trunk I was talking about, the trunk and basic branches of vertebrates that we miss so much."
    You miss this? You need to get out more.

    "But I want to see the names at the splits, not only at leafs."
    Again, you're asking for a higher resolution than is possible.

    "I don't want to take away your hope, but it won't."
    It should. There's a reason that you have fish genes (and I'm doubting that it's because God intended for Man to have accurate smell while breathing under water). They're broken now, as natural selection no longer selected for them once our ancestors became land dwellers. Dolphins, meanwhile, also have broken fish-smell genes (and there's not a lot of pressure to get them back in a water animal that doesn't breath underwater, either).

    "The modern ones don't even walk on the bottom of the sea. And they're not a shallow water fish like they were supposed to be..."
    So...science has been wrong before? Thank God for the theologians that pointed out the errors.

    "...(and tiktaalik is now)."
    ...which is why they found it in an area consistent with river estuary/shallows. It's all in that Your Inner Fish book that I keep linking to.

    "Pakicetus left a gap it supposed to fill..."
    And every fossil that fills a gap just creates two other gaps. It's like we keep learning less and less about the history of life on Earth with each new discovery. Outrage!

    "...Coelacanth did..."
    It still does. "Coelacanth is the common name for an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of gnathostomata known to date. The coelacanths, which are related to lungfishes and tetrapods, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938." & "Although now represented by only two known living species, as a group the coelacanths were once very successful with many genera and species that left an abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous period, at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction."
    That it's around now has no effect on its ancestors, cousins and the like being around back then.

    "And how many hoaxes are yet to be discovered in man evolution?"
    Our corner of the tree is a mess. That in no way counters common descent from non-homo sapiens sapiens.

    "I want examples of transition from one life form to another, gradual development of some novel traits, stuff like that."
    It's probably not in the level of granularity that you want (because it can't and won't be), but fish to tetrapods shows the pattern pretty well, and the work-in-progress Tree of Life Web Project looks like its trying to put it all together (just in time for cladistics to mess it up).

    "if Donald Johanson would become professor had he found chimp fossils instead of 'missing link'"
    Yeah, it's not like he stumbled upon a chimp-like skeleton with a comparatively modern "upright" hip. That would potentially be a missing link or something.
    Oh.

    "...about malachite men..."
    The unfossilized, found in loose soil, morphologically modern malachite man? It's a hoax, but it wasn't the evolutionists that hoaxed it. A reporter sensationalized the story and, later, Carl Baugh put it in his Creation museum as "out of order" fossils.

    ReplyDelete