Feed on Posts or Comments 25 July 2014

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 18 Mar 2010 12:37 am

Glenn Beck proves there is no God

Glenn Beck quotes some Bible verses and he says the “social justice” part of Christianity is a lie:

Other evangelical leaders quote some other Bible verses and they say social justice is essential to Christianity:

Evangelical leader takes on Beck for assailing social justice churches

Beck has millions of followers who say he is right. Other evangelical leaders have millions of followers who say they are right.

The fact is that there are hundreds of debates like this in Christianity. Example: Millions of Christians believe homosexuals should die, while millions more believe they should be forgiven. Example: Millions of Christians believe that women should be submissive to men, while millions more believe that women should be ordained priests. Etc., etc.

The fact that there are all of these schisms in Christianity proves that there is no God. For if there actually were a God, the answer to every question about God and Christianity would be crystal clear. God would say which side is right in every debate. There would be no confusion, no questions.

The fact that all these fundamental questions can have any debate proves that God is imaginary.

30 Responses to “Glenn Beck proves there is no God”

  1. on 23 Mar 2010 at 12:21 am 1.Rostam said …

    Ok, let me see how this works. Millions of atheist claim there is nirvana. Millions of other atheist claim there is only what science can verify. Millions of other atheists maintain there is a “Life-force”. Millions of other atheists claim it is tolerable to execute anyone who doesn’t tender to atheism. Millions of other atheists allege it is erroneous to kill those who don’t follow atheism. Therefore, atheism is imaginary. If atheism was valid all atheist would accept as true the same dogma.

  2. on 23 Mar 2010 at 2:03 am 2.KittyJordan22 said …

    According to my own exploration, billions of people on our planet receive the mortgage loans from various banks. So, there’s a good possibility to find a consolidation loan in every country.

  3. on 23 Mar 2010 at 1:45 pm 3.Observer said …

    Rosta-

    Wow! This is new! By demonstrating the limitlessness of your stupidity, are you trying to demonstrate the infinite, and by extension the possibility of the infinite limitless Abrahamic “God”? It is a creative approach. Sadly, your simple minded attempt at an argument above merely demonstrates your inability to even conceive of, let alone be, an individual having original and free thoughts outside some hackneyed dogma.

    Atheism means “Without gods”, as you seem to have observed. You are lost when you get to the point that one has to think for one’s self versus adopting some sort of allegedly divine nonsense being spouted by a clergyman in lieu of thought. You really are quite silly.

  4. on 23 Mar 2010 at 7:43 pm 4.Rostam said …

    “an individual having original and free thoughts outside some hackneyed dogma”

    (ho-hum)Observer how could you miss such a simple well crafted point? Well, let me preach on it!

    Free of a deity but not free of secular priest. Wave you freethinker banner if you must, but you and yours are not free thinkers. There is in truth no discernible distinction between atheist dogma and religious dogma. You only utilize dissimilar sources but in the end they are all men.

    I have listened to more mindless drones cite Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens or aka Cardinals of the atheist faith to strengthen an argument. Naturally, I proceed to point out how their excerpt fails to make strengthen their position. Without fail, they begin to babble with a barrage of uhs, and ums.

    Just this week a young man attempted to share that:
    “Men wrote the Bible and men are liars”. He then goes on to quote Harris. I then asked the young man is Harris not a man? The blank stare then ensued.

    Maybe you could call this just more of the McSame or “Change we can believe in”. It’s 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of another.

  5. on 24 Mar 2010 at 12:49 am 5.Observer said …

    Rosta- You are babbling again. Give up. You have nothing. I do no know who you are referring to citing Dawkins, et al, and I could care less. Why don’t you make a cogent point for once? The best you seem to muster is some weak argument the atheistic folks are as cretinous as the Christians and other religious folks by virtue of them behaving like religious folks. You don’t make a compelling point there because you do not make a thesis and then support it. Flush that out then maybe you could finally understand the difference. Or maybe you just want to whine.

  6. on 24 Mar 2010 at 4:36 pm 6.Xenon said …

    “Free of a deity but not free of secular priest.”

    Rostan you failed to mention that now some of the various atheist groups are offering evangelism classes. I read about the new classes a year ago and cannot remember who the group was/is offering the classes. I would anticipate mission trips to be next.

  7. on 28 Mar 2010 at 9:01 pm 7.christ said …

    did all the brain-deficient hook-hands claw their way out of crazytown or did one of them manage to pick the lock?

  8. on 29 Mar 2010 at 10:07 am 8.greg said …

    The question asked about why God won’t heal amputees is a question that demands another question in order to receive a proper reply.
    ” First question should be what is a man?”
    answer
    A man is composed of three parts, a physical body, a physical soul and a physical spirit. The greek word for spirit is pneuma meaning ” wind”,and just like wind you feel it but you don’t see it. You hear amputees describe feeling there body parts that have been removed, doctors say this is the nerve endings or “Phantom Pain” What it really is, is your spiritual body, still intact, your physical body part has been removed. This is the how you live forever, while your earthly body deteriates ” ashes to ashes” your soul and your spirit live forever either in Hell or Heaven. This is while the Bible tells you you will burn but never burn up, you soul is indestructable, and just like the wind you feel it but you don’t see it.
    I would like to leave you with a statement for all who think there is no God and the Bible is not His word. ” This book the Bible is a message of exterestial origin. It portrays us as objects of unseen warfare. Our Eternal Destiny depends upon our relationship with the winner of this cosmic conflict.”

  9. on 29 Mar 2010 at 3:31 pm 9.Observer said …

    Greg-
    That is a wonderful exposition of ignorance; you demonstrate wonderfully the enexorable progress of science and knowledge as it grinds away the foundations of religion. Your exposition is somewhat poetic, and might make sense in a vacuum devoid of knowledge and intelligence.

    What is missing is the work of neuroscientists over the past thirty years. The phantom pain you describe, and attribute to the “soul” can now be “seen” with functional MRI (fMRI) as brain function. There are even effective treatments being developed in time for the poor folks caught in Bush’s Wars.

    Science yet again dispenses with another supernatural fiction. Where will it end? It won’t. Biblical nonsense will someday be held with the same regard as the rankest African and Haitian Voodoo by all but the most ignorant people living.

  10. on 30 Mar 2010 at 3:15 am 10.A real-ist said …

    ” First question should be what is a man?”
    answer
    “A man is composed of three parts, a physical body, a physical soul and a physical spirit.”

    Greg, here is the answer you are looking for:

    a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family.

  11. on 04 Apr 2010 at 12:34 pm 11.Makarel said …

    Realist, you pathetic illustrator, do you have any idea of what you are saying?
    Mr. Z pointed out your lack of imagery and examples as something to be looked at more closely by the rest of the folks. I’m astonished by my findings about your illustrative work, my advice to you is; please for your sake stop giving weak examples that you cannot understand.

    Looking at your illustration of Homo sapiens, I found your example utter crap (and yes this also applies to the evolving of man to its present state). You want to know why?

    This is why, if apes are where we came from, why are there still apes around? I assume they will evolve, right? Evolving to our status some day, and so will all animals right?(like the fish turning to man theory) So one day, there will be no other species except man right (for we do not find any of our so-called ancestors around, they died out)? Bull Crap!
    Oh and why aren’t these cave-man animals around today? I bet they would have known how to survive whatever age it was that they were in. But they are not here to give a testimony because we only have their fossils. And if you state that we made it and they did not due to their lack of “development of brain in resultant capacity.” which you claim we received. The definition itself poses more weird conclusions.
    Your conclusion and the rest of the smart asses out there say that, we evolved, and we are the sole evolvers. But then fossil hunters are trying to see the link of evolving organisms.
    Your definition got a slap on its face from its own hand. its like someone slapping themselves silly. Which is in turn; are pathetic illustrations and pathetic theories to teach in schools and universities. And even more apthetic when Mr. realist use it.

  12. on 04 Apr 2010 at 1:22 pm 12.MrQ said …

    Makarel claims:

    “This is why, if apes are where we came from, why are there still apes around? I assume they will evolve, right? Evolving to our status some day, and so will all animals right?(like the fish turning to man theory) So one day, there will be no other species except man right (for we do not find any of our so-called ancestors around, they died out)?”

    Holy crap!!! I can’t believe the stupidity Mak. Maybe before wowing the world with your incredible insights and logic you should try doing a little bit of research, and I am not talking about cracking a bible or other holy book for your information.

    You do know that the “theory” of evolution has been accepted by the largest group within your faith, the RCs. Yes, that’s right, the pope is OK with it. And if it’s the theory part that you disagree with, then why aren’t you up in arms about the theory of gravity, or electricity, or any other scientific THEORY.

    I think I can be of great service in your revamp of modern science. Let’s first start with the theory of gravity. There is NO “traditional” gravitational force as explained by the general theory of relativity (cripes, there’s that theory word again, and it’s general). Pure nonsense, poppycock, I say.

    Mak and I would like to propose a newer much better theory. We will call it “the LAW of staying affixed on our wonderously beautiful god given planet”. Or “Intelligent Pushing” for short. It simply states that god, by secret and invisible means, is hold us in place on our planet by pushing down on our little heads. Sometimes when we trip, god pushed too hard and is sending you a warning message message reminding you of his infinite wisdom and power; It’s his way of getting you to behave in an appropriate manner. There that ought to be good enough.

    Wow, that was easy. What “THEORY” shall we tackle next Mak?

    This site may help you, Mak: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

  13. on 04 Apr 2010 at 4:52 pm 13.Severin said …

    1 Rostam
    I am very glad to hear that so many millions of atheists exist!
    I am even more glad that you recognize atheism is spreading so rapidly!

    Science wins!

    “If atheism was valid all atheist would accept as true the same dogma.”
    As ALL religions claim to be valid, why don’t all of them accept the same dogma, but are quarreling about whose bullshits are right.

  14. on 04 Apr 2010 at 5:13 pm 14.Anonymous said …

    Christianity is best consumed in moderation or not at all.

    Like most other things served up on a stick (such as corn dogs, fudgsicles, etc) christianity, especially the evangelical hardcore fundamentalist BS this site attracts, can taint and distort your vision to the point where up is down, left is right, black is white.

    For those of faith, stick to believing. Wonder with amazement how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and try to leave the scientific theories to the pros. There can be a lot of math involved with science and it’s tough stuff.

    The bible is much easier to concentrate on, it has easy math. Like dates of the Earth (6000 years old, isn’t it?), ages of some of it’s cast of characters (some of whom lived several hundred years, right?), and almost everyone can count by twos (Noah and crew). See, it’s real simple. All you gotta do is BELIEVE.

  15. on 05 Apr 2010 at 1:21 am 15.Makarel said …

    Mr.Q,
    Ah yes, the old theory of evolution made you jump huh? Well, look closely at your sources and you will see that even scientists that conjure up the theory do not even agree on the theory. This is no lie. There are some that oppose the coming about of man from ancestral apes or whatever other species that you all think and believe we came from. The only problem is the majority view.

    The majority of scientists and even the Pope as you say, think it is plausible for this humanity to come from such species. Let me repeat: MAJORITY VIEW is where you are basing your belief.

    There is a difference between a majority view and a correct view. One is concerned with the belief in the many (quantity), the other is the belief in the correct (quality).

    My challenge for your intelligence is simple, find the minority/quality view (not religious views) in scientific circles.

    You will be guaranteed something insightful.

    Mr. Q, I cannot help but notice how you brought the other “theories” (theory of gravity and electricity and others), hey they are not theories!
    You must have been asleep during your years in college or something.
    What is the definition of theory?
    These so-called theories are facts, so get your facts straighten out before you blabber another weak and pathetic illustration!
    You mentioned gravity laws as theories and electricity laws as theories, (you did not mention others so I won’t for your sake),how original. They are what we call LAWS, ok. Look it up and don’t blabber something your mind cannot fathom.

    Oh, and there is nothing Holy about crap, not even where it came from.

    Mr.Q, Boy, you really do not have any idea of what you are writing, so please “stay awake” in class and challenge the majority view.

    And remember, your definition of THEORY must undergo some serious upgrading.

  16. on 05 Apr 2010 at 2:05 am 16.Makarel said …

    Anonymous,
    There are no pros,

    “Wonder with amazement how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and try to leave the scientific theories to the pros.”

    There are only speculators with mathematical skills that can baffle others. Are you going to follow whatever they conjure up? Are you going to base your whole attitude on life with these mere man as your guide.

    Let me tell you are secret (because they do not say this out loud), your guides have been wrong before (look at the history of science), so what makes you think your “pros” will get it right? Even in this age?

    You see, science can never keep still, scientists never keep still (they venture out to find the next big thing) so they go and battle among themselves to win favour(within their own circles), and that trickles down to your level and so you naturally agree with the new findings.
    This is no Lie, only when they genuinely find no other way to confront the new insight, then they agree. But, there are the new ones that will try and make a name for themselves, these are your so-called pros. They will come with a new insight or improve on the old one, so students (the world) will know their names until the next “big name” comes up in the future.

    Einstien’s e=mc2 energy equivalence formula is undergoing some challenging times. If they (new breed of scientists)can conjure up something better than the famous e=mc2 formula, they will take it and totally diregard the work of Einstein. That is the nature of science.

    Take notice because your “pros” are in a ping pong match scenario. And your beliefs will be like that of a ping pong ball.

  17. on 05 Apr 2010 at 2:14 am 17.A real-ist said …

    “Looking at your illustration of Homo sapiens, I found your example utter crap”

    Mak, by the way, I pulled the definition from a dictionary.
    And evolution has proven to exist. It has been in all species, including our own species. It doesn’t happen over night and yes, fossils are proven to exist.
    According to the Bible, the Earth is only about 6000 years old. Tell that to the fossils and layers of dirt and dead plants that are millions of years old.

    “There is a difference between a majority view and a correct view.”

    Good point, especially on things that aren’t based on proofs, for example, your belief in religion. Science is based on proof, which if the majority of scientists believe in something, it is a safe bet it is true. Give me an example if you think not.

    “My challenge for your intelligence is simple, find the minority/quality view (not religious views) in scientific circles.”

    Your the one claiming the minority/quality views, so give us the examples.

  18. on 05 Apr 2010 at 2:51 am 18.Makarel said …

    Realist , where did you jump off? The wagon I mean.

    You look at a particular sentence and you analyse it without looking at the context of where that sentence fits into the whole, I guess that is why you have no idea of what I’m stating. And the dictionary definition is incorrect! Especially when they class man alongside other species.

    Majority and minority views refer to oppositions that come with whatever theory that is out there. So its simple:
    1. Find the theory.
    2. Look for the opposition to the theory (within science itself)

    The science department is the focus here, not the Bible (FYI). It is easy to see new oppositions to theories, honestly. Just look at the history of science, how it came about. The theories of Darwin were very enlightening to a particular time, but now, well, its been scrapped. By whom, the science of today, not the Bible, Science.

    Science is chasing the unknown with their limited intelligence. And it is like a ping pong ball, believing in this then jumping over to the next. Keep still, but it is hard to keep still in science, that is because it is unsure of itself.
    Beleive me, if there is another way to prove a new theory to the Laws of gravity that we have, science would take it. It shows an unstable belief in what you already claim as proven.

  19. on 05 Apr 2010 at 3:17 am 19.A real-ist said …

    The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an “ism”) of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.[17] For example, Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge’s book What Is Darwinism?.[18] However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin’s natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book’s title by concluding: “It is Atheism.”[19][20][21] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[22] Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief, as well as a pseudo-religious ideology like Marxism [23] , bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools.

  20. on 05 Apr 2010 at 3:35 am 20.A real-ist said …

    “Science is chasing the unknown with their limited intelligence”

    Question for you, Mak, would you rather believe in something that has evidence or something that does not? Science at least uses evidence to prove things. People of religion don’t think they need evidence. It is easy to want to believe a fairy tale is true. Take kids for example. They believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Religion is no different; its just that believers never had their parents tell them it isn’t true, so they grew up believing it is true and then tell their kids. It is easy to want to believe in something without proof. But wanting to believe in something doesn’t make it true.

    Proof makes things true until proven otherwise. Once proven otherwise, then that other proof is true. The pattern here is that proof is used to make a claim. For one to say something could really be true because it may be proved in the future does not make it true until it is actually proved to be true. So why do people need to believe in something if it isn’t proven yet? If it is ever proven to be true that God exsits, then I will believe. But until then whats the point? I like to stick to my saying, ” If something isn’t proven to be true, then it is more likely it isn’t true.”

  21. on 05 Apr 2010 at 5:07 am 21.MrQ said …

    From the enlightened brain of Mak:
    “Ah yes, the old theory of evolution made you jump huh? Well, look closely at your sources and you will see that even scientists that conjure up the theory do not even agree on the theory.”

    Conjure? You think because it is a theory that it’s conjured? How does one dismiss all the testing, observation, peer reviews, and convergent evidence (molecular biology, fossil record, geology, etc) which continue to prove that Mr Darwin was correct with a simple “it was conjured”? Wow, that is some skill; I wonder if the number of teeth in your mouth matches your IQ. But I shouldn’t be overly surprised because you, Mak, can always safely revert to the “goddidit” position when an avalanche of evidence contradicts your limited world view; it’s called “true-believer syndrome”. That’s the problem when a 2000 year old book is your point of reference; the line you must walk is narrow, and straight. Veer too far to one side and you risk plummeting back to reality. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for introducing any cognitive dissonance to your life and causing you to actually think so keep the blinders firmly on, it’s much safer that way.

    Yes, you are correct that not all scientists agree on the nuances of evolution but you forgot to mention they all agree on the theory of evolution in principle. That’s the the way scientific laws and theories work. Both are the result of numerous observations and tests. Both can be modified with discoveries of new evidence. Both are overwhelmingly supported by facts. That’s right, Mak, both laws and theories can be discarded or modified. Dare to do some research: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law

    Mak, again:
    “There is a difference between a majority view and a correct view. One is concerned with the belief in the many (quantity), the other is the belief in the correct (quality). My challenge for your intelligence is simple, find the minority/quality view (not religious views) in scientific circles.”

    That’s my problem – I am not smart like you are. I am having a hard time deciding on which are the correct “minority/quality” views you are referring to. Just a few examples come quickly to my feeble mind: Raelians, Scientologists, Creationists, Intelligent Design advocates, Mormons, Phelps Baptists, Flat Earthers, Astrologists, and there are numerous others. But which one of these nutty “minority/quality” views is THE ONE? Help me out Mighty Mak.

  22. on 05 Apr 2010 at 5:44 am 22.Makarel said …

    Mr. Q

    “That’s the problem when a 2000 year old book is your point of reference; the line you must walk is narrow, and straight. Veer too far to one side and you risk plummeting back to reality. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for introducing any cognitive dissonance to your life and causing you to actually think so keep the blinders firmly on, it’s much safer that way.”

    And there is also a problem when you decided to lay your evidence of reality in your science department. looking at your links, it is safe to assume that you have some idea of what evolution is. Of course there is evolution, there is no denying of its occurances, but it fails every time to explain the coming together of the complexity of even the smallest of living cellular orgainsms. And mankind is a giant ‘blind leap’ when I consider the so-called evidences that is within the principles of evolution.

    It is funny though that you are keeping your blinders firmly on for it is much safer for you.
    This is your statement that you can apply to yourself also.

    It is a blind that you also have on which conjure up your reality.

  23. on 05 Apr 2010 at 5:52 am 23.A real-ist said …

    “Of course there is evolution, there is no denying of its occurances”

    Mak, you claimed that Darwinism isn’t proven and now you are saying there is evolution. Which is it?

    “It is a blind that you also have on which conjure up your reality.”

    You are saying that to people who don’t believe because of lack of evidence? It is us that should be saying that to you. ‘blind leap of faith’

  24. on 05 Apr 2010 at 6:38 am 24.Makarel said …

    Realist,
    “Mak, you claimed that Darwinism isn’t proven and now you are saying there is evolution. Which is it?”

    Which is what? there is a difference between them, take notice of it. Mr. Q can elaborate it more.

    “It is us that should be saying that to you. ‘blind leap of faith’.”

    New word now, FAITH. What do you have faith in?

    Take a traveller for an example, he buys his ticket to fly on a plane to a far away country. He goes on board the plane, the plane takes off. Does the traveller have faith in reaching his destination? I bet he would because he wouldn’t have bought a plane ticket if he did not have a belief in the planes and belief in the skills of the pilot he does not even know and haven’t met before. So what prompt the traveller to go on a plane, since he had also taken notice of the stats of plane crashes. Faith.
    So the traveller goes by faith to his next destination. So do Christians.

  25. on 05 Apr 2010 at 11:24 am 25.A real-ist said …

    Using a person flying in a plane vs the no proof of existence are totally two differnt scenarios that are not even close to each other. It is a fact that planes are constantly in the air flying. When there is a plane crash, stats show that was a one in a (insert big number) chance it had crashed. So therefore most people feel comfortable enough based on the evidence that there is an overwhelming chance it will get to it’s destination. There are no stats that Christians can go by to ease their mind in believing. In order to use your example to make sense, there would have to be facts that show almost everyone goes to heaven if they deserved it and only a few minor instances that people don’t go to heaven when deserved. Since there is no proof people go to heaven……it would be like if someone goes on a plane when there is no proof of a plane ever flying before, kind of like when the Wright Brothers were first testing it out, they had to have faith it would land.

  26. on 05 Apr 2010 at 12:20 pm 26.MrQ said …

    Wow, did Mak just write:
    “Of course there is evolution”

    I’d say that is progress.

    But then we get:
    “And mankind is a giant ‘blind leap’ when I consider the so-called evidences that is within the principles of evolution.”

    followed by:
    “It is funny though that you are keeping your blinders firmly on for it is much safer for you.”

    I gotta ask: What evolutionary facts have tied your knickers in a knot? Do tell. If it’s the coming together of life in the primordial soup of early Earth then you might want to try looking into “abiogenesis”. FYI, abiogenesis and evolution are two separate areas of study. Here is the Wiki link, it’s easy reading:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    A web search or a trip to your local library will yield even more information. Maybe you’ll even discover that the mechanism of abiogenesis has been confirmed by scientists.

    I eat heartily from the tree of knowledge. The world is there for me to discover and if, during my voyage of discovery, the bible or koran is proven to be correct and accurate then my world will not be shattered or devastated. I am a reasonable guy, I will heartily enjoy reading the facts as stated in whatever book is proven true. I doubt that you have the capability to honestly say that you’re OK with the discovery that the bible is not correct and accurate. Because you already know that the bible is completely accurate, right?

    I am on an unencumbered voyage of discovery. The world is there for me to explore and discover. You, Mak, have already decided on a “truth” and must view the world in context. Now who has the blinders on? ;-)

    Stick to the faith, Mak. No need to carry on with trying to logically prove your good book. Just BELIEVE, I am sure you’re good at that.

  27. on 07 Apr 2010 at 3:23 am 27.A real-ist said …

    50 Reasons I Reject Evolution:

    1.) Because I don’t like the idea that we came from apes… despite that humans are categorically defined and classified as apes.

    2.) Because I’m too stupid and/or lazy to open a fucking science book or turn on the Discovery Science Channel.

    3.) Because if I can’t immediately understand how something works, then it must be bullshit.

    4.) Because I don’t care that literally 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution as the unifying theory of biology.

    5.) Because I prefer the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ZAM MOTHAH-FUCKAHS!!!

    6.) Because I can’t get it through my thick logic-proof skull that evolution refers ONLY to the diversity of living organisms which reproduce with genetic variation, not to abiogenesis, or planet formation, or big bang cosmology, or whether God exists, or where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, or why the sky is blue, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a fucking Tootsie Pop.

    7.) Because the fossil record doesn’t comprise the remains of every single living thing that ever existed on this 4.5 billion year old planet, even though fossilization is a rare process that only occurs under very specific circumstances.

    8.) Because science has yet to produce any transitional species… except for the magnitudinous numbers of them found in the fossil record which don’t count because… I uh, OOH LOOK! A SHINY OBJECT!!! *runs away*

    9.) Because I know nothing about Darwin except that he had a funny beard.

    10.) Because the theory of evolution (which, according to scientists, perfectly explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth) contradicts biblical literalism… ya know, flat Earth with a firmament that keeps out the water, talking snakes, people rising from the dead, bats are birds, flamey talking bushes, virgin births, food appearing out of nowhere, massive bodies of water turning into blood… etc etc.

    The rest is located here:

    http://godisimaginary.com/comics/?paged=15

  28. on 10 Apr 2010 at 5:26 pm 28.A real-ist said …

    New Fossil May Show How Apes Became Humans
    Rare Fossil Could Be the Missing Link in the Evolution Saga

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/fossil-hold-key-evolution-show-apes-humans/story?id=10320180

  29. on 10 Apr 2010 at 10:25 pm 29.Xenon said …

    Le’me xplain to the newbies in the house. Microevolution occurs within a species. Macroevolution is yet to be proven other than using examples of microevolution.

    Clear enough? I know many of you like Rich Dawk would like to claim macro is now “fact” but alas it is not. Its all we have and actually the evidence is quite underwhelming thus the emotionalism of the atheist.

    Lack of evidence and crying that fossilization is rare doesn’t cut it in real life. I just left Costa Rica at a 5000′ elevation and found fossilized seashells. Sounds like the creationist have some evidence!

  30. on 08 Jul 2012 at 10:22 am 30.Lisa brandos said …

    Magical spells really work!! I never thought there were still honest, genuine, trustworthy and very powerful spell casters until i met the spiritual helper, MERUJA OWO. last week he did a love spell for me and it worked effectively and now he just casted another healing spell for my friend who has fibroid and family problem and now she is totally free and she is presently the happiest person on earth, she keeps thanking me all day..
    I just thought it would be good to tell the whole world about his good work and how genuine he is, i wasn’t thinking i could get any help because of my past experiences with other fake casters who could not bring my husband back to me and they all promised heaven and earth and all they are able to do is ask for more money all the time until i met with this man. he does all spells, Love spells, money spells, lottery spells e.t.c i wish i can save every one who is in those casters trap right now because i went though hell thinking and hoping they could help me.i recommend MERUJA OWO for any kind of help you want.
    his email address is: nativedoctor101@live.com
    if you want to ask me anything my e-mail is: dorispinto1001@gmail.com
    Kind Regards!

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply