Feed on Posts or Comments 29 August 2016

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 30 Apr 2011 12:06 am

Why religion can flourish even when it is provably false – Science shows that human children are easily indoctrinated

This quick science experiment shows that human children are strangely easy to indoctrinate. Apparently human children can be indoctrinated with any sort of nonsense, if the video is to be believed:

Commentary:

Young chimps make chumps of children

Vicky Horner, who worked on the study, added: “All the children blindly copied everything I did, perhaps because as humans we’re predisposed to copy adults.

This is likely the source of religion’s persistence. Human children will accept any nonsense from if it comes from an adult.

328 Responses to “Why religion can flourish even when it is provably false – Science shows that human children are easily indoctrinated”

  1. on 04 May 2011 at 2:55 pm 1.jkk said …

    That is some study there!!!! I can’t believe it such an educated person to figure that out. Of course children copy adults and react to what they see adults do. Children who are brought up in Christian homes are taught to love Jesus. Children also act like fools when raised by foolish people.

  2. on 04 May 2011 at 3:02 pm 2.jkk said …

    I have four children who were raised to love Jesus. I have also taught my children to be kind to others and not make fun of or bully others. They have been taught that all of us are different, but we all have feelings and do not appreciate it when someone is cruel to us. I am very proud of my childre, they are all great kids and yes, I do pray for all of them. I have told them to “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. That we all sin and it is not our place to decide who is sinning and who is not. It is God’s. I would not raise my babies any other way! God bless you all and your little ones!

  3. on 04 May 2011 at 3:50 pm 3.Lou said …

    1.jkk said …

    “Children who are brought up in Christian homes are taught to love Jesus. Children also act like fools when raised by foolish people.”

    DOH!

  4. on 04 May 2011 at 4:48 pm 4.DPK said …

    “Children also act like fools when raised by foolish people.”

    How very true.

  5. on 04 May 2011 at 5:03 pm 5.Rostam said …

    jkk

    Thank you for being such a good and faithful parent. We definitely need more.

  6. on 05 May 2011 at 4:12 am 6.Ben said …

    “This is likely the source of religion’s persistence. Human children will accept any nonsense from if it comes from an adult.”

    And it seems it comes down to one things: validation. If you validate a child by telling them they’re a “good girl/boy” for doing what you tell them then they’re likely to act agains their nature. Kid doesn’t want to go to church? Punish them. Kid does go to church? Get icecream on the way home.

    Anybody who thinks human beings are anything other than animals should learn the first thing about early-childhood development: you can teach a child new tricks using the same methods as you teach a puppy — reward and punishment.

  7. on 05 May 2011 at 6:19 am 7.Severin said …

    5 Rostam
    “Thank you for being such a good and faithful parent. We definitely need more.”

    You are free to thank me too!
    I was a very good parent, and taught my daughter EXACTLY the same things jkk did.
    She is now a decent and responsible adult.
    Very decent, and very responsible. A GOOD and HONEST person.

    You also may, if you want, thank to many other atheists, who raised wonderful children.

    Conclusion: god is not necessary to raise good people.
    Moreover, god is an obstacle, for at least 2 reasons:
    – My daughter has no fear of dying. She does not believe in afterlife, so she spends her time much more effectively for LIVING
    – She never spent her precious time on prayers and going to churches; again, she had much more time for LIVING

    She cares for PEOPLE, not for gods.

    Her moral rules are the SAME as those of jkk’s children.
    Why would anyone think that I, or my daughter, or an atheist debating here, or ANY atheist, would violate moral rules accepted by human society?

    WHAT is it we “definitely need more”?

  8. on 05 May 2011 at 4:29 pm 8.Joshua said …

    So now we need to deal with the foolish Christians. A never ending task. Fortunately I find it fun.

  9. on 05 May 2011 at 6:32 pm 9.A said …

    Children are easily indoctrinated? Eureka! A huge breakthrough!!!

  10. on 06 May 2011 at 3:11 am 10.Sister Chromatid said …

    Children who are told that gods (or Jesus) talks to people can readily confuse the voices in their head for gods. Schizophrenia can be confused for revelation.

    I find magical thinking unbecoming in adults– Even Jesus-god magical thinking. I look forward to a time when humanity outgrows it’s myths.

  11. on 06 May 2011 at 3:34 am 11.DPK said …

    I saw this on a teen’s facebook wall today. They were talking about the 2nd coming of Jesus which is supposed to take place on May 21st. (I’m paraphrasing)

    “No, I don’t really believe it, but maybe it will terrify some people into accepting Jesus, so in that way I guess it’s good.”

    Such is the result of indoctrinating children. I think brainwashing children, particularly with tales of fire and brimstone and eternal torment, is just a form of child abuse. I don’t think children should be given religious instruction until they have reached an age where they can reason for themselves and make a conscious decision to join a religion under their own free will.
    For Rostram, that may be well into his 60’s however.

  12. on 09 May 2011 at 6:35 pm 12.Lauren said …

    Something must have happened to you Joshua.
    If you need someone to talk to, I’m here.
    I’m 22 years old and not very quick to judge.
    If you want my e-mail address let me know :)
    -Lauren <3
    P.S. In the meantime I will be praying for you! LOL!

  13. on 09 May 2011 at 6:40 pm 13.Lauren said …

    Sister Chromatid then you must believe evolution is a myth….
    Darwyn himself said that if the creatures’ fossil’s in-between the chimp and the cave man were not to be found, then everything that he has said about evolution is a lie.
    The cave man’s and the chimp’s have been found, they have yet to find the in between.
    Also, Noah’s ark has been found…..
    Repent my friends, he’s coming quickly.

  14. on 09 May 2011 at 6:51 pm 14.Lauren said …

    Quit looking at all the bad in the world, there’s alot of good happening also.
    But for some reason, people love to focus on the evilness of it all.
    Human nature…
    Look at the beauty…Especially in nature.
    The flowers, the birds, and my personal favorite the stars.
    Then, you will realize that, there’s no way that there can’t be a God.
    Got a little sentimental :`-)

  15. on 09 May 2011 at 6:57 pm 15.Lauren said …

    DPK,
    Revelation does phrophecise the second coming, and I’m not going to lie, I’ve thought about it myself…
    But, not even Jesus knows the day nor the hour.
    Only God. So, it’s just always good to remember, better SAFE than SORRY.
    “42 Therefore stay alert, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have been alert and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect.”
    Matthew 24:42-44

  16. on 09 May 2011 at 6:58 pm 16.Anonymous said …

    Lauren,
    How much do you know about science? Better check into the fossil record again about what has been found. Maybe you’ll be surprised….check out a link (pssst….the website founder is a christian): biologos.org

    Who found the ark? Wow, looks like I am converting. Just point me to the evidence.

  17. on 09 May 2011 at 7:06 pm 17.Lauren said …

    About the whole chimp video,
    How many “non-christians”, on this blog, are the same demoninantion as their parents?

    Not very many I bet.

  18. on 09 May 2011 at 7:08 pm 18.Lauren said …

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

  19. on 09 May 2011 at 7:13 pm 19.Lauren said …

    Time to convert :D

  20. on 09 May 2011 at 7:20 pm 20.Lauren said …

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

  21. on 09 May 2011 at 7:20 pm 21.Lauren said …

    National Geographic good enough Anonymous?

  22. on 09 May 2011 at 7:34 pm 22.DPK said …

    Lauren, I have to ask if you actually READ either of the 2 articles from National Geographic that you cited, because neither one of them supports your assertions that Noah’s ark has been “discovered” or that evolution is a myth. In fact, both articles would seem to suggest that those supporting both claims are rather silly.
    Lauren, lots of people have predicted the end of times on many occasions. The only thing they have all had in common is that they have all been wrong.

  23. on 09 May 2011 at 7:54 pm 23.Lauren said …

    LOL! I will be honest, the one about Darwin’s “theory of natural selection” I did’nt read at all, it bores me!
    But, I don’t know what you’re talking about one the one of Noah’s ark?
    It doesn’t say anything about it being silly, they 99.9 % believe that it’s it, but they can’t get to it.

  24. on 09 May 2011 at 7:55 pm 24.Lauren said …

    And they would have to find every single one of those species in order to prove the “theory” of evolution.
    Not one has been found yet.

  25. on 09 May 2011 at 8:02 pm 25.Anonymous said …

    LOL! I will be honest, the one about Darwin’s “theory of natural selection” I did’nt read at all, it bores me!

    Yeah, I know what you mean. Math is tough, too. Better just stick to the bible, it’s made for the simpletons.

  26. on 09 May 2011 at 8:07 pm 26.DPK said …

    23.Lauren said …

    LOL! I will be honest, the one about Darwin’s “theory of natural selection” I did’nt read at all, it bores me!

    That’s pretty obvious. Why don’t you refrain from commenting about things you know nothing about? Evolution is a “theory” in the same way that the earth revolves around the sun is a “theory”. The only people still claiming evolution is a myth are the lunatic fringes, of which you are one. And no, they do not “have to find every single one of those species to ‘prove’ evolution.” What a silly statement.

    As far as Noah’s ark, here is the opening line from the article you cited:

    “A team of evangelical Christian explorers claim they’ve found the remains of Noah’s ark beneath snow and volcanic debris on Turkey’s Mount Ararat.

    But some archaeologists and historians are taking the latest claim that Noah’s ark has been found about as seriously as they have past ones—which is to say not very.”

    “I don’t know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn’t find it,” said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=146941

  27. on 09 May 2011 at 8:35 pm 27.Lou said …

    This Lauren person can’t be for real. It’s only somebody pulling your chain to get a reaction.

  28. on 09 May 2011 at 8:45 pm 28.DPK said …

    I think you are right Lou. If it was April Fool’s day, I’d suspect Joshua.
    Nobody could actually cite an article that completely refutes your point and then admit they “did’nt read at all, it bores me”
    Lauren, if you are for real, wherever you went to college, go get your money back, you wuz robbed!

  29. on 09 May 2011 at 9:43 pm 29.Mitch said …

    David Berlinski, one of the most erudite writers in science and mathematics has authored a book called “The Devil’s delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions”. Those who particularly like seeing sacred cows treated with a bit of sarcasm and irreverence will enjoy his writing on almost any subject, but this book, attacking the status quo as it does, is especially delightful if for no other reason than for how pompous writers like Richard Dawkins and others approach to this subject.

    The argument boils down to three main points: there is nothing in science proper that undermines religion (a point extolled by SJ Gould), most of the new atheists badly misunderstand even the most rudimentary arguments of theology and are not logically consistent, and finally that much of science has become rather dogmatic, like a new religion. I think Berlinski does an excellent job addressing all three of these points, the first of which should be more or less self evident. Claims, for example, that one “should” only believe in physical or visible evidence are not, in and of themselves, empirical claims.

    Berlinski also correctly notes that the critics of St. Thomas really do not understand his arguments. Take for example the famous cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas. In its simplest form, this argument takes the form of a syllogism. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began at some point. Therefore the universe has a cause. Agnostic that he is, Berlinski correctly notes that this is not actually an argument for God. It is an argument that the universe began to exist, meaning it required a cause. Aquinas, of course, argued this cause was “God” and very specifically the God of the New Testament.

    But one need not arrive at this conclusion. It is possible that the universe simply goes on forever. One event causes another and so on back to infinity. Berlinski asks, if we saw a row of dominoes falling, “would we, without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes toppling. Of course not. We fall back upon such reasoning only when discussing God. But of course Hume’s argument has been rendered pointless by the fact that 20th century cosmology did in fact discover the universe had a beginning.

    Dawkins for one simply asserts that Aquinas failed to consider the possibility that God was subject to infinite regress. Amazing, to call this argument sophomoric is an insult to sophomores, though he did not specify whether he was referring to high school or college sophomores. Aquinas did not “assume” God was not subject to infinite regress. It was the conclusion of his argument that infinite regress was not possible and Dawkins, should he want to refute such an argument, needs to address it directly.

    The book examines one argument for atheism after another and finds each wanting. The authors of these arguments are logically inconsistent. They appeal to multiple universes and dimensions, a weak anthropic principle, physical laws that change from place to place coupled with as yet undiscovered universal laws, and then accuse theists of violating the law of parsimony, Occam’s Razor. They publicly stand by Darwin, especially on origin of life issues (about which Darwin had little to say) while privately expressing their doubts about the explanatory value of his theory in many respects. Perhaps the highlight of the book to quote the prominent biologist Shi V. Liu who noted that Darwinism “misled science into a dead end” but “we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists .. in fighting against the creationists.” Any theory is better than an alternative that might imply God or some other non material cause.

    Why would Liu make such outlandish claims? For some scientists, and many more non-scientist, science has itself become a religion. And it is a religion with a very jealous God, who can have no other Gods before Him. Like other religions, of course, this one has much to offer its followers, both in material benefits and spiritual solace. But all good agnostics still recognize it for what it is, the zeal of its adherents notwithstanding.

  30. on 10 May 2011 at 12:42 am 30.Observer said …

    Mitch- I suppose in the birds of a feather flock together vein, you again trot out the crank Berlinski. I can cut and past too… (But I will use quotations)

    “A 2008 Slate magazine profile by Daniel Engber characterized Berlinski as “a critic, a contrarian, and — by his own admission — a crank […and] zealous skeptic, more concerned with false gods than real ones.”[10] In that same article Berlinski said he “got fired from almost every job [he] ever had” before finding a career as a writer as a “maverick intellectual.” Engber characterized Berlinski’s viewpoints as “radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he’s more concerned with what we don’t know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn’t there and seeks out the things that can’t be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia—a state of permanent suspicion and outrage. But Berlinski is hardly a victim of the style. He’s merely its most methodical practitioner.”[10]

    Mark Perakh, a critic of the intelligent design movement, contends that Berlinski’s writings are not scientific, but popular, and that Berlinski “has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science.”[15]

    Responding to Berlinski’s arguments concerning evolution, marine biologist Wesley R. Elsberry comments: “I personally like my ‘at onces’ to refer to events significantly shorter than ten million years.”[16] Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education described Berlinski’s arguments in The Deniable Darwin as:[17]

    . . . The content of David Berlinski’s article does not differ from more traditional creation-science material, though his tone is more genteel and his writing a lot more literate. . . . But true to the creation-science genre, his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data as well as carefully selected quotations from evolutionary scientists. . . .
    ” From the infallible Wikipedia.

  31. on 10 May 2011 at 1:05 am 31.Observer said …

    This is better than the twaddle Berlinski peddles. This is free, and on the front-lines of Christianity. The end of history is upon us, graves are already beginning to rumble from below; IT IS TIME TO DRAIN THE RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, GOOF OFF AT WORK, TAKE A HOLIDAY because JUDGEMENT DAY IS UPON US! HALLELUJAH!

    ( I recommend the Feederz “Jesus Entering from the Rear” as accompaniment. )

    http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/

    This stuff comes from the great Harold Camping of Oakland, CA. I used to listen to him when I lived in the Bay Area (other side of the bay).

    If only these annoying folks, Christians, would actually disappear in the next couple weeks.

  32. on 10 May 2011 at 1:45 am 32.Horatiio said …

    Mitch,

    Good information from Berlinski. It is the best post I have read here in quite awhile. I especially like the religious comparison which is spot on.

    You got Nose Buster all upset which makes it all worth while.

  33. on 10 May 2011 at 2:15 am 33.Observer said …

    Hor- You are exquisitely stupid; keep up the good work! Will you be packing your bags on the 20th, or the Rapture a full service event? Did Snoop Dogg, Biggy Smalls, et al. presage these soon to come events?

  34. on 10 May 2011 at 6:03 am 34.Severin said …

    15 Lauren
    “But, not even Jesus knows the day nor the hour.
    Only God.”

    Jesus is NOT god?!

    Elaborate, please!

  35. on 10 May 2011 at 6:32 am 35.Severin said …

    29 Mitch
    „Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began at some point. Therefore the universe has a cause.“

    Except god?
    Why is god excluded from this „logic“?

    What if everything that exists has NO cause? How did TA conclude that everything that exists must have cause? He just SAID something, that absolutely does NOT sound logical, and you expect us to just trust it!
    WHY would existance of matter/energy necessarily have a cause? Because TA said so?
    Or because you think it must be so? Oh, yes, Mr. Berlinski also said it! Then it MUST be right!
    Bullshit!

  36. on 10 May 2011 at 6:34 am 36.Severin said …

    29 Mitch
    „One event causes another and so on back to infinity.“

    What if „infinity“ is circular? Who said it must be a straight line? Berlinski?
    In fact he did, he mentioned a „raw“ of dominoes, not a „circle“.
    The man has no imagination at all!

  37. on 10 May 2011 at 6:39 am 37.Severin said …

    29 Mitch
    “„Hume’s argument has been rendered pointless by the fact that 20th century cosmology did in fact discover the universe had a beginning.“

    UNIVERSE had beginning! It did NOT (and no one ever said it DID!) beginn from „nothing“.
    Universe we know begann from already existing matter/energy compressed in „mega black hole“, made of MATTER/ENERGY, NOT from “nothing”!
    Which direct us to conclusion that matter/energy are eternal, but only changeS its form.
    No gods necessary.

    Especially not idiot who take mud (dust? dirt?) to “create” a man, then forgets inbreeding leads to destruction of species, and orders A&E children to fuck each other to have children!

  38. on 10 May 2011 at 7:02 am 38.Severin said …

    29 Mitch
    “It was the conclusion of his argument that infinite regress was not possible”

    Except in case infinite regress was circular, of course.
    Which leads us to conclusion that SOEMTHING had to “just exist”, WITHOUT CAUSE, and that “something” only changes its form.
    I would agree with that point.

    WHAT “just existed”, without cause?

    God? Hmmmm..I never saw any god!
    Matter/energy? I saw a lot of matter/energy.

    Of couse you are free to call matter/energy “god”.
    You are also free to EXPECT something from that god, but you will get from “him” only things that strictly follow natural laws.
    Do not expect “eternal life” from THAT god (except if you don’t consider “eternal life” the fact that atoms you are made from, will one day be in another person).

  39. on 10 May 2011 at 7:55 am 39.Severin said …

    Mitch (Berlinski),

    In short:
    Linear infinite regress can not exist, because in such a “chain” each effect MUST have a cause, and god can NOT be excluded from this (linear, “dominos”) chain.
    If god caused something, something must have caused god.

    Idea that SOMETHING must have existed WITHOUT CAUSE is probably right, but turns the cause-effect chain from linear to circular:
    Something DOES exist “per se”.
    Everything thet occurs, occurs within the CIRCULAR cause-effect chain, “INSIDE” the system. The “triggers” that play roles of “causes” are:
    – previous state of the system (that can be described by observable and measurable values)
    – inherent rules (natural laws, also observable and measurable through observing and measuring effects they cause)
    Effects that occur are the CAUSES for next effects.
    The “circle” is not necessarily a perfect geometric circle we know, but is obviously a closed loop.

    PERFECTLY fits to “god” called matter/energy!

    “Sins” done against THAT god have terrible consequences!
    Global warming, for example!

  40. on 10 May 2011 at 11:14 am 40.Boz said …

    “Like other religions, of course, this one has much to offer its followers, both in material benefits and spiritual solace. But all good agnostics still recognize it for what it is, the zeal of its adherents notwithstanding.”

    Mitch I think that point has been made just by the posts that followed. Just as the Roman Catholic dogma dare not be question so we must not dare question the dogma or origins and dogma. If so their intelligence and stability must be attacked, not the argument to tear them down.

  41. on 10 May 2011 at 1:10 pm 41.Lou said …

    29.Mitch said …

    ‘David Berlinski, one of the most erudite writers in science and mathematics has authored a book called “The Devil’s delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions”.’

    One major point missed – even if Berlinski is correct, there’s still one major problem – no evidence for God. Forget all the philosophical and logic arguments – where’s God and any evidence for him?

  42. on 10 May 2011 at 1:54 pm 42.Lou said …

    33.Observer said …

    “Hor- You are exquisitely stupid”

    And apparently very proud of it – he continues to advertise it with such comments.

  43. on 10 May 2011 at 5:03 pm 43.Joshua said …

    @ Lauren
    Hi Lauren!
    @ Lauren 12
    What makes you think something happened to me? I have no problem with people judging, it’s how society moves forward. The only time I react badly to people judging me is when they can’t support what they are claiming.

    @ Lauren 13
    “The cave man’s and the chimp’s have been found, they have yet to find the in between.”
    This is a common complaint about evolution. The problem is that whenever we do plug the gaps that you mention creationists are still not satisfied. We do not need every single in-between in order to make claims about the fossils that we do have. Any analysis of fossils looks at hundreds of characteristics, patterns of similarity between them, and the ages of the fossils to determine how they may be related. Conclusions can be drawn without the literally billions of fossils that your standard of evidence would lead to.

    It would be similarly unfair to demand that in order to prove jesus was everything the bible said, that you must provide a videotape of his entire life. A much smaller amount of evidence would be satisfactory.

    @ Lauren 14
    “The flowers, the birds, and my personal favorite the stars.
    Then, you will realize that, there’s no way that there can’t be a God.”

    Why is this an argument for god? Just because things exist and are beautiful does not point to a god, it just means that beautiful things exist.

    @ Lauren 17-21
    “How many “non-christians”, on this blog, are the same demoninantion as their parents?”

    This is confusing. What do you mean by this?

    Noahs ark
    The article contains a lot of information about those who dispute that this is the ark. You can’t use this evidence for the ark because it is an article about a group of people who claim to have found the ark, and the comments by folks (including other Christians who believe in the ark) who say that this is not the ark. The wood dates wrong, the textual support for the mountain is not there, and other objections. “wooden compartments” does not equal a boat. There needs to be more evidence than that given the description in the bible.

    Evolution article
    Why do you think that this article (whole issue actually) is a problem for evolution? If you read the articles the conclusion of all the pieces is that while Darwin got some of the details wrong, the overall idea of evolution was correct and since then we have discovered more details about how evolution works. (Ok now I know. Below).

    @ Lauren 23
    “LOL! I will be honest, the one about Darwin’s “theory of natural selection” I did’nt read at all, it bores me!”

    So you make claims about evolution, and admit that you have not read the article you cite as a problem for evolution. Why should I think that you have a good understanding of evolution if you don’t read the things you cite? I have to admit that so far your ideas about evolution are all wrong.

    “And they would have to find every single one of those species in order to prove the “theory” of evolution. Not one has been found yet.”

    Which species are you talking about? Also nothing is “proved” in science or anywhere else. There is only a pile of evidence sufficient to convince a person.

  44. on 10 May 2011 at 5:51 pm 44.Joshua said …

    @ Mitch 29
    1. “there is nothing in science proper that undermines religion”

    *Too vague A. Replace “religion” with a specific belief system. Otherwise to me this means that religion just makes new stuff up when the old stuff is not good enough anymore.
    Too vague B. Religions have made specific claims that when explored with science have come up short. Replace “religion” with a specific claim and then we can talk.

    2. “most of the new atheists badly misunderstand even the most rudimentary arguments of theology and are not logically consistent” Most of it is meaningless to me because the only arguments I care about are the ones that are supposed to demonstrate the existence of god. Those that I have read have been poor arguments. Also logical arguments are only a starting point for possible research. You still need real evidence and not a logical argument. The logical argument is only to demonstrate that there is something worth pursuing.

    3. “finally that much of science has become rather dogmatic, like a new religion.” Certainly individual scientists and atheists can be dogmatic. I personally dislike dogmatism. But that is not an argument against science or atheism as a whole. Just the fact that science is by it’s very nature self-correcting makes it different than religion. I would need specific examples here.

    “Claims, for example, that one “should” only believe in physical or visible evidence are not, in and of themselves, empirical claims.”

    We trust in science because it gets results. Please give me examples of non-physical and/or non-visible evidence that you would consider to be of a type that science does not accept, and tangible benefits of such evidence.

    “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began at some point…”

    And there I have to stop you. All we know from physics is that at some point the universe expanded from a singularity. We do not know what form the universe took before that so we cannot say that it “began”. It’s possible that the universe always existed (though I would need evidence either way) and we can only go back so far. Scientists/atheists are not making assumptions here. Sounds like Aquinas is the one making assumptions. I will need an argument for why the universe needs a cause, or why in possible previous universe configurations there could not be universes that had uncaused causes.

    “…cosmology did in fact discover the universe had a beginning.”
    The universe’s CURRENT FORM. We cannot currently go past the plank time limit.

    “…and then accuse theists of violating the law of parsimony, Occam’s Razor.”
    So because there are competing hypotheses about cosmology in SCIENCE (physics) ATHEISTS are wrong? Category error. Most of us don’t believe your evidence and are happy to admit that the picture of the universe is still under dispute.

    “They publicly stand by Darwin, especially on origin of life issues (about which Darwin had little to say) while privately expressing their doubts about the explanatory value of his theory in many respects.”

    I need a specific example. Everyone I read has no problem separating evolution from abiogenesis. I suspect you (or Berlinski) are misunderstanding what you are reading. Also since Evolution is still an active area of research, or course aspects of the theory are still incomplete and may not yield an accurate picture of the world. This is normal for science. Why is this important?

    “Perhaps the highlight of the book to quote the prominent biologist Shi V. Liu who noted…”
    So one biologist says stupid things (if the context is correct) and that means science is now like a religion? So when I hear some Christians say dumb things is it OK to think that all Christians are like that now?

    I have a better idea. Like I said above, give me examples of why science is now like a religion and we can discuss them.

  45. on 10 May 2011 at 5:59 pm 45.Joshua said …

    Ah Horatiio. For a moment I thought class was back in instead of the off period that I have.

  46. on 10 May 2011 at 6:01 pm 46.DPK said …

    41 Lou:

    One major point these guys seem to have missed. Berlinski is agnostic, or as he himself describes “a secular Jew”.

    So, his dissertations on the “problems” he sees with the current state of atheism is little more than philosophical yammering, offering no alternatives, and certainly not in support of religion, or theism in general.

    “Berlinski shares the movement’s disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: “warm but distant. It’s the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives.”
    Berlinski is a scathing critic of “Darwinism”, yet, “Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life.”

    Berlinski is a contrarian who offers much criticism, but no answers.

    Personally, I think it’s rather amusing that the theists would cite the work of someone who does not acknowledge a god as evidence against atheism.

  47. on 10 May 2011 at 6:03 pm 47.Joshua said …

    @ Boz 40

    “Mitch I think that point has been made just by the posts that followed. Just as the Roman Catholic dogma dare not be question so we must not dare question the dogma or origins and dogma. If so their intelligence and stability must be attacked, not the argument to tear them down.”

    You can question. Just be able to defend and explain your questions/objections. If you can’t than we are free to dismiss your questions and objections.

    Most of the time on this blog when one of us says why we don’t agree with a line of questioning or an objections, we get nothing from you. So we are free to dismiss.

  48. on 11 May 2011 at 2:20 am 48.Thomas said …

    @ Mitch

    An outstanding post and sounds like an outstanding read. I will need to check it out. Anytime one question Darwinism the radical nuts pop out of the woodwork. I can think of nothing in science that is guarded so closely. It is good to see the ID movement growing. We need alternatives to an obviously flawed theory.

  49. on 11 May 2011 at 3:05 am 49.DPK said …

    Berlinski doesn’t support intelligent design either. He doesn’t seem to actually support anything, only criticize everything.

    Sorry, “God did it.” isn’t and alternative to a flawed theory, it isn’t a theory at all as it doesn’t explain anything, nor is it testable.
    http://www.seykota.com/tribe/faq/2009_june/11/then-a-miracle-happens.jpg

  50. on 11 May 2011 at 11:03 am 50.Thomas said …

    ID is open to natural and intelligent causes. All empirically detected evidence points to intelligent designer. When we detect information contained in 1000 encyclopedias in a single sell we can make empirically based conclusions that a message has been provided just as we can when we observe posts on this blog.

    Only the pigheaded would continue with time and chance did it when empirical evidence does not support such conclusions.

  51. on 11 May 2011 at 1:21 pm 51.Lou said …

    50.Thomas said …

    “ID is open to natural and intelligent causes. All empirically detected evidence points to intelligent designer.”

    LOL! There’s nothing intelligently designed by nature. For starters, the vast majority of “intelligently designed” life forms on earth are extinct. Some intelligent designer!

    “When we detect information contained in 1000 encyclopedias in a single sell we can make empirically based conclusions that a message has been provided just as we can when we observe posts on this blog.”

    So what? Where is this alleged intelligent designer?

    “Only the pigheaded would continue with time and chance did it when empirical evidence does not support such conclusions.”

    “Only the pigheaded would continue with” with an unknown supernatural being designer “when empirical evidence does not support such conclusions.”

  52. on 11 May 2011 at 1:37 pm 52.Lou said …

    48.Thomas said …

    “Anytime one question Darwinism the radical nuts pop out of the woodwork.”

    Anytime one uses the term “Darwinism” to describe modern evolutionary biology, it can be assumed that the user is an idiot – probably one that embraces purely religious fantasies such as Intelligent Design and Creationism, ideas reminiscent of a flat-earth, geocentric universe, celestial orbs, astronomy, spontaneous generation, and alchemy.

  53. on 11 May 2011 at 1:38 pm 53.Lou said …

    52.Lou said …

    Correction – astrology, not astronomy.

  54. on 11 May 2011 at 2:16 pm 54.Observer said …

    I keep going back to this, one of the all time great Christian websites that, in a compellingly and verbose way, is the quintessence of the faith. This fellow, who I have corresponded with, is at the top of his game.

    http://www.fixedearth.com/

    It also has some other rather splendid slants that all but the densest reader will find and be either shocked, amused ( my case ), or sickened.

  55. on 11 May 2011 at 2:47 pm 55.Lou said …

    Gravity is only a theory –

    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

  56. on 11 May 2011 at 3:05 pm 56.DPK said …

    50.Thomas said …

    ID is open to natural and intelligent causes.

    If ID is open to natural causes, then that is evolutionary biology. If it is open to intelligent design, that is religion. The problem with a designer, is who designed the designer?
    I am no expert on evolutionary biology, but my understanding is that the complexity you speak of as empirical evidence can be explained by the evolution of self replicating biological systems in a closed system, given the enormity of geological and cosmological time. I have never heard an evolutionary biologist claim that anything happens by “chance”. Quite the opposite.
    But to make the leap from evolution, guided by natural selection, to talking snakes, crucifixions, and resurrections is well…. absurd.
    Maybe that’s not a leap you yourself are making, I don’t know. But it is not one supported by empirical evidence, to be sure.

  57. on 11 May 2011 at 9:29 pm 57.Lou said …

    56.DPK said …

    “But to make the leap from evolution, guided by natural selection, to talking snakes, crucifixions, and resurrections is well…. absurd.”

    Absurdity – the basis of religion.

  58. on 12 May 2011 at 1:24 am 58.Boz said …

    Thomas

    Everything comes full circle. In the 1800s science was a tool for discovering and defining the natural processes put in place by God. Nothing has been discovered or unearthed to change that belief. It is just not PC to mention God. Essentially that is what science is today. The ID group just mentions God. I laugh every time I read someone who equates ID with creationism.

    Lou would call them idiots. I think Lou and Observer are brothers.

  59. on 12 May 2011 at 1:28 am 59.Boz said …

    Ha Ha Ha, someone is actually attempting to equate gravity (observable science) macroevolution (historical science). Where do we get these people……..

  60. on 12 May 2011 at 1:46 pm 60.Lou said …

    58.Boz said …

    “In the 1800s science was a tool for discovering and defining the natural processes put in place by God. Nothing has been discovered or unearthed to change that belief.”

    Nothing was ever “discovered or unearthed” to support a belief in God.

  61. on 12 May 2011 at 1:49 pm 61.Lou said …

    59.Boz said …

    “Ha Ha Ha, someone is actually attempting to equate gravity (observable science) macroevolution (historical science). Where do we get these people……..”

    Apparently you are the only one who interprets that tongue-in-cheek article as such. But yes, where do we get YOU people? In a cave somewhere?

  62. on 12 May 2011 at 2:23 pm 62.Joshua said …

    @ Thomas 50
    “ID is open to natural and intelligent causes.”

    Yes but that just pushes back the question of where the designer came from, if you take ID seriously. When you look at the origins of ID however it is pretty clear that modern ID is the politically acceptable replacement for creationism.

    “All empirically detected evidence points to intelligent designer.”

    Impossible. To recognize design you need to have been exposed to design to have a frame of reference. The only biological design humans have experience with is design that humans have invented. What is your frame of reference for the “design” in nature?

    “When we detect information contained in 1000 encyclopedias in a single sell we can make empirically based conclusions that a message has been provided just as we can when we observe posts on this blog.”

    What is in the cell is chemistry. Increases in complexity in systems with simple rules have been observed. You are incorrectly equating complexity with information. We have experience with humans creating symbolic patterns and systems (information), but there is no evidence that the complexity in nature is symbolic (made through intention) and the evidence that has been collected so far indicates that the early earth had chemistry that would have produced the biochemistry that cells use.

    “Only the pigheaded would continue with time and chance did it when empirical evidence does not support such conclusions.”

    Only the ignorant would accuse supporters of evolution and abiogenesis of believing in a system that is based on chance and time when natural SELECTION is the opposite of chance. You have obviously not looked at the empirical evidence. Please link to your sources if I am mistaken.

  63. on 12 May 2011 at 2:48 pm 63.Joshua said …

    @ Boz 58
    “In the 1800s science was a tool for discovering and defining the natural processes put in place by God.”

    Until the evidence collected by scientists indicated that the biblical view of the world was mistaken. Creationists always skip that portion of history. As time goes on the proportion of unbelievers in science has increased. Education is correlated with less religious belief for a reason.

    “Nothing has been discovered or unearthed to change that belief.”

    Seeing as you never reply to substantive replies to the comments that you and other theists make here with anything that indicated that you really read and under stood the substantive reply, I am safe in assuming that you just have not bothered to read about the discoveries and things unearthed that are inconsistent with many religious beliefs, especially yours.

    “It is just not PC to mention God. Essentially that is what science is today.”

    Science tests claims about reality. Every time a religious person has made a claim about “god” that describes an interaction between this god and our reality, the evidence for that has been disappointing. Most of the time “god” in science has been unfalsifiable as an explanation so cannot be confirmed (if it is not potentially possible to collect evidence against, it is a useless explanation because the truth cannot be determined). The rest of the time “god” has just been a place holder as the “god in the gaps” argument. Every time this has been done in history we have eventually found a material cause. That is literally the track record of “god” as an explanation. Every time it has been used a material cause has eventually been found. What you perceive as “not PC to mention god” is a resistance to considering “god” as an explanation because of this history. Science is completely dependent on evidence and testability. If the explanation of “god” has neither than it is useless. Maybe you can be the one to give us a testable explanation for something involving “god”. (quotes used to highlight the fact that “god” must be defined for testing purposes).

    “The ID group just mentions God. I laugh every time I read someone who equates ID with creationism.”

    This REALLY makes me wonder if you are a poe. If you can’t see how this is self-contradictory I am pretty positive you are either a middle school student or you still get help tying your shoes in the morning (and not because you have no fingers).

  64. on 12 May 2011 at 8:28 pm 64.Curmudgeon said …

    #58 @ Boz

    You are on the money here. As culture became more determined to come up with a naturalistic explanation for origins eventually resulting in man, scientist have pushed the definition of science to come up with some ridiculous theories.

    God is as much a part of the equation as ever. I guess time diddit and chance diddit or we don’t know are the new scientific catch phrases. We who question the conclusions are the enemy. I don’t mind being the enemy

  65. on 12 May 2011 at 9:26 pm 65.Anonymous said …

    #64
    Yeah, Cur, maybe your onto something there. Of course they knew more of the ways of the world and universe back in the days when god spoke directly to his underlings. When you can channel the almighty and write a book about it then nothing is a mystery, is it?

    Just wondering what happened to the old boy….seems he’s become a little muted since his guide book came out. Come May 21st, maybe we re-establish our connection with the holy spook. Looking forward to that day. How ’bout you Cur? Have you been a good boy?

  66. on 12 May 2011 at 10:28 pm 66.Dutch said …

    Great Minds discuss ideas
    Average Minds discuss events
    Feeble Minds (Like A – Lou?) discuss people.

    Just laying out the parameters.

  67. on 13 May 2011 at 12:44 am 67.DPK said …

    Joshua is right on the money. Religion and science have historically made claims about the nature of things. If history has shown us nothing else, it has been that religion has usually been wrong, and science ultimately has been right.
    The scientific process by it’s nature is self correcting, whereas religious dogma does not have that luxury.
    To point, 50 years ago most religions opposed the idea of evolution. Now only the fringe nutjob sects still deny evolution as reality. Of course, now they claim the evolutionary process as the idea of their god. What else are they going to do? When undeniable evidence drags them kicking and screaming into the real word, they just rearrange the dogma and claim it as their own. How long did the church brand as heretics those who theorized the earth was not the center of the universe?
    Evolution and natural selection is just the latest in a long series of embarrassments the church has been dealt from science. Eventually even the creationist wing nuts will go away. It takes time.

  68. on 13 May 2011 at 2:55 am 68.Lou said …

    66.Dutch said …

    “Great Minds discuss ideas
    Average Minds discuss events
    Feeble Minds (Like A – Lou?) discuss people.”

    Says the guy who’s discussing people.

    Yes, I sometimes discuss people who can’t comprehend events or ideas, but can only comprehend a fictional fairy tale book about an imaginary god. That why I insist that it’s an exercise in utter futility to discuss ideas with them.

    “Just laying out the parameters.”

    Nobody elected you to lay out anything.

  69. on 13 May 2011 at 2:59 am 69.Lou said …

    67.DPK said …

    “Evolution and natural selection is just the latest in a long series of embarrassments the church has been dealt from science.”

    Even the Pope, and thus the church, have accepted the Big Bang. But, as you wrote, they claim it’s the work of god.

    “Eventually even the creationist wing nuts will go away. It takes time.”

    Unfortunately, I think you’re incorrect. The “creationist wing nuts” are simply part of the people who have what I call the religion gene. They simply can’t help it and they never will. It’s as if it’s part of their instinct to think and act stupidly.

  70. on 13 May 2011 at 3:55 am 70.DPK said …

    They will. But it takes generations, not years. We won’t see it, but our grandchildren might.
    Think about where we are now compared to the superstitious nonsense that went on when churches ruled the world… the aptly named Dark Ages. A scant 400 years ago, which is a blink in the history of our species, we were still burning witches.

  71. on 13 May 2011 at 4:34 am 71.Severin said …

    58 Boz
    “I laugh every time I read someone who equates ID with creationism.“

    http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
    „Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.“

    So, the difference between creatonism and ID is:
    – ID followers claim universe was designed by some intelligent entity.
    – Creationists (Christians, Muslims,…) claim universe was created by an idiot, using “hocus – pocus” methods

    Are YOU a Christian?
    If you follow and support the idea of intelligent design, you can NOT be a Christian!
    There is nothing intelligent in Christian teachings.

    Please tell us: are you a Christian?

  72. on 13 May 2011 at 4:46 am 72.Severin said …

    64 Curmudgeon
    “God is as much a part of the equation as ever.”

    Are YOU a creationist or a follower of ID idea?
    We Boz enlightened us that the 2 things are NOT same!

    Now, YOU have to tell us: are YOU a Christian?

    WHICH god is “a part of equation”?

    Christian god, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna…OR a “yet unidentified intelligent, but all present and eternal entity”?

    Boz told us (indirectly, but obviously) that Christianity (Islam, …) was an idiotic bullshit.
    What do YOU think?

  73. on 13 May 2011 at 10:46 am 73.Curmudgeon said …

    “Evolution and natural selection is just the latest in a long series of embarrassments the church has been dealt from science.”

    The Bible never discusses evolution. Second, my money is on this. In a century evolution will be discarded. A new theory will emerge. Yes science is self-correcting but it is wrong a lot. That is hardly embarrassing. When God creates there will be a Big Bang. No problem there.

    The OT predicted the birth of Christ. Three hundred prophecies came true concerning the Christ. That is impressive and recorded.

  74. on 13 May 2011 at 10:46 am 74.Curmudgeon said …

    Dutch,

    I have heard that before. So true.

  75. on 13 May 2011 at 1:12 pm 75.Lou said …

    73.Curmudgeon said …

    “The Bible never discusses evolution.”

    Nor germ theory, nuclear fusion, etc.

    “Second, my money is on this.”

    Irrelevant.

    “In a century evolution will be discarded. A new theory will emerge.”

    No, it won’t. And neither will gravity. Get this through your thick skull – evolution is a fact. But yes, there will be new theories and discoveries that will change our understanding of how evolution happens.

    “Yes science is self-correcting but it is wrong a lot. That is hardly embarrassing. When God creates there will be a Big Bang. No problem there.”

    That’s nothing but nonsensical rambling.

    “The OT predicted the birth of Christ. Three hundred prophecies came true concerning the Christ. That is impressive and recorded.”

    That is total and utter B.S. without an ounce of truth to it.

  76. on 13 May 2011 at 2:36 pm 76.DPK said …

    “The Bible never discusses evolution.”

    Yes, that’s odd, isn’t it? Instead it talks about man being made from dust, and woman from a rib, and the earth being supported on “firmaments”. But nothing actually relating to reality. Odd, coming from an omniscient being.

    “In a century evolution will be discarded.”
    No, in a century evolution will be refined. I think in way less than a century, perhaps in a decade, man will have created living organisms as well. The only real conclusion you can draw is that if evolution is in fact incorrect and “god did it” then he also went to an awful lot of trouble to plant an astounding amount of evidence to deceive us. And since god does not deceive, that would kind of go against his nature, no?

    “The OT predicted the birth of Christ. Three hundred prophecies came true concerning the Christ. That is impressive and recorded.”

    So, one myth predicts what will happen in another myth and that’s impressive? Whne I was little my parents told me the story of the tooth fairy and how if I put my tooth under my pillow at night, the tooth fairy would come and take the tooth and leave me some $$! Know what? The prophesy came true! Not one, but several times… fo rme AND my siblings and friends. THAT is impressive and recorded!!!
    Read your history. The Judea-Christian legends are not original. They are all borrowed from older gnostic or earlier religions. The virgin birth, death and resurrection… all of it recycled superstitions.

  77. on 13 May 2011 at 2:47 pm 77.Joshua said …

    @ Curmudgeon 64
    “As culture became more determined to come up with a naturalistic explanation for origins eventually resulting in man, scientist have pushed the definition of science to come up with some ridiculous theories.”

    Examples? The scientific process was developed by the religious and when they used it the results showed them that the world was not what they thought it was. What the culture thinks does not matter, what matters is the evidence that those using science have collected. If anything the culture is very anti-scientific and was more so back then (with respect to cherished beliefs being challenged by scientific findings). Naturalistic explanations were not being sought, they were what was found. You have it completely backwards.

    “God is as much a part of the equation as ever.”

    Evidence please. If that is the case it should be trivial to provide evidence to assess.

    “ I guess time diddit and chance diddit or we don’t know are the new scientific catch phrases.”

    One of the reasons that it is hard to respect you guys is that even when we tell you what we think, you continue to go around saying that we think something else. Time and time again we have told you that chance is not how any of the origin theories works. Natural SELECTION! Selection is the opposite of chance. Name the scientists who say it was time and chance.

    We don’t know has always been part of the process. Why do you think science is being done? Because we don’t know but we want to know! “We don’t know is a reason for science.

    “We who question the conclusions are the enemy. I don’t mind being the enemy”

    Questions are fine. But when the questioner cannot describe the questioned accurately, displays flawed knowledge of the subject, and refuses to engage in discussion, we have a right to display scorn and contempt. As an example look at how I am talking to Lauren. I am polite with her because she deserves the chance to demonstrate if she will discuss in an honest manner. But if she were to insist on telling us what we think, refuse to consider our claims that she has flawed knowledge on subjects that we do for a living, and refuse to respond to counterclaims and comments on her claims after getting responses from us, I would consider her as dishonest as some of you and bring out the inner asshole.

  78. on 13 May 2011 at 3:16 pm 78.Joshua said …

    @ Curmudgeon 73

    “The Bible never discusses evolution.”

    What’s the point? So what if the bible does not mention it.

    “Second, my money is on this. In a century evolution will be discarded. A new theory will emerge.”

    People have been saying this since Darwin wrote the Origin. I have been hearing this my whole life. It never happens. It could happen, IF folks actually try to develop a theory that explains all the things that evolution does AND things that evolution does not (whatever those are), AND is useful as a tool to explain and manipulate reality. That is what every hypothesis/theory must do. But I am not holding my breath.
    “Yes science is self-correcting but it is wrong a lot. That is hardly embarrassing.”

    Which does not detract from the areas where it is right. It also does not change the fact that in the areas where it is wrong, the wrong explanation was the best explanation available until better data was collected. Nothing replaces discussion of the specifics of the evidence that lead to the explanation, something that the theists on this board are largely resistant to doing.

    “When God creates there will be a Big Bang. No problem there.”

    Big problem. Most likely you pulled that explanation out of your rear. If not please show me the evidence that indicates that “god” is the best explanation for the big bang. (god quotes indicate differences in definition of god among believers)

    “The OT predicted the birth of Christ. Three hundred prophecies came true concerning the Christ. That is impressive and recorded.”

    Examples please. I have never seen a prophesy that did not have a perfectly good normal explanation. To be convinced in something as divorced from our normal experience as a prophesy, there really can’t be any other explanation.

  79. on 13 May 2011 at 5:36 pm 79.Lou said …

    70.DPK said …

    “They will. But it takes generations, not years. We won’t see it, but our grandchildren might.”

    Thousands of years ago some smart guy like you probably said something similar about all the fighting that occurs in the Mid-east.

    For example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tXxIgjlT7c

  80. on 13 May 2011 at 6:06 pm 80.Rostam said …

    The atheists are funnier than ever. One claims evolution (which one) is fact another claims science is wrong alloy. The dogma is so inconsistent. Fact is, the evidence for macroevolution is so flimsy the case would never get in court. I tend to agree with curmudgeon. The theory will be replaced in the next century.

    But alas, the case for evolution is irrelevant. Atheists have never provided any evidence against God. God is more of a fact than macroevolution. I have been hearing since my college years when I finally wised up to this fact. If atheists desire to further their own dogma, they present a case. They have yet to even provide an abstract. Until then we will never consider your case.

    Why must you provide the evidence? It’s quite simple really. Atheists are attempting to change the prevailing status quo. If you desire to change the state, you must provide a compelling case. Rebellion against your parents, hatred of religion or perceived intellectually superiority are not sufficient credentials. This is not a challenge, due to the fact I know what evidence you have for the task.

  81. on 13 May 2011 at 6:10 pm 81.Rostam said …

    Well, I was wrong. Lou provided a clip from Family Guy. Lou you forgot to provide your “Doh” after the link. The Simpsons and Family Guy are your trump cards. Nice!

    Yes, that was quite compelling. I will take it under consideration.

  82. on 13 May 2011 at 7:30 pm 82.Lou said …

    80.Rostam said …

    “One claims evolution (which one) is fact another claims science is wrong alloy.”

    Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is fact. And just as there are theories for gravitiy, there are theories for evolution. Can’t you understadn that simple concept?

    “The dogma is so inconsistent.”

    There is no dogma.

    Fact is, the evidence for macroevolution is so flimsy the case would never get in court. I tend to agree with curmudgeon. The theory will be replaced in the next century.”

    It doesn’t matter who you agree with. There may be some theories about evolution that will change, but evolution, like gravity, will never be replaced as a part of nature.

    “But alas, the case for evolution is irrelevant.”

    There is no “case for evolution,” per se, anymore than there is a case for gravity.

    “Atheists have never provided any evidence against God.”

    Oh no, here we go again with this same stupid argument that is like beating a dead horse.

    “God is more of a fact than macroevolution. I have been hearing since my college years when I finally wised up to this fact. If atheists desire to further their own dogma, they present a case.”

    Let’s try it again – atheism is not a dogma anymore than is not believing in Santa Claus, leprechauns, or the tooth fairy. For someone who alleged went to college, you have great difficulty understanding that. If theists presented a case with any plausible evidence or facts, then there wouldn’t be any atheists.

  83. on 13 May 2011 at 7:35 pm 83.Lou said …

    81.Rostam said …

    “Yes, that was quite compelling. I will take it under consideration.”

    And perhaps you can easily understand it because it’s a carton. People who believe in fairy tales about a god written about in fictional books like the bible most often operate on a level than doesn’t allow them to understand anything much beyond cartons.

  84. on 13 May 2011 at 7:52 pm 84.Lou said …

    80.Rostam said …

    “Atheists are attempting to change the prevailing status quo.”

    Perhaps I was mistaken. Apparently you didn’t understand the Family Guy clip.

  85. on 13 May 2011 at 8:34 pm 85.Joshua said …

    @ Rostam 80

    “One claims evolution (which one) is fact another claims science is wrong alloy.”

    Please explain this. The second part makes no sense.

    “The dogma is so inconsistent. Fact is, the evidence for macroevolution is so flimsy the case would never get in court. I tend to agree with curmudgeon. The theory will be replaced in the next century.”

    If you think the evidence for “macroevolution” is flimsy, you don’t understand it. Here is a good way to present the concepts,
    http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/xwpvw.jpg?w=450&h=206

    More intelligent people than you have been saying that the theory of evolution will be replaced for almost 200 years. I think I know where I would put my money.

    “Atheists have never provided any evidence against God. God is more of a fact than macroevolution. I have been hearing since my college years when I finally wised up to this fact. If atheists desire to further their own dogma, they present a case. They have yet to even provide an abstract. Until then we will never consider your case.
    Why must you provide the evidence? It’s quite simple really. Atheists are attempting to change the prevailing status quo. If you desire to change the state, you must provide a compelling case.”

    The person making the claim is the one to present the evidence. Atheists are not making that claim, and status quo does not matter.

    By making this demand you are asking most of us to lie by making an argument that we do not believe. So no, I will not be providing evidence against god because that is not something I have ever done. I do not take the position “god does not exist” and then go looking for evidence for that. Instead my position is “there is no reason to believe in gods or goddesses because the evidence for them is poor, cherry picked, and/or unconvincing.” I would never say that there is no “god” because it is always possible something like that exists and every religion has been wrong about its nature. But I do not believe things without evidence.

    I looked for evidence for god when I was a Christian, and discovered that not only was the evidence lacking, but my fellow Christians (including my family) were ignoring evidence that contradicted the god we believed in.

    As you have been told repeatedly, atheism is the rejection of someone else’s god claims. Me and others in these posts have been discussing some of the issues that have led to our disbelief, but we are not making an argument against god. Instead, the “god” concepts we are presented with do not match up with reality.

    So you may continue being a lazy ass and pretend that you can just sit there and make a claim with no evidence or argument all you want. One reason that religion has been on the decline in Europe and (organized religion at least) the US is because folks like us that are surrounded by all these beliefs with such terrible support get good at arguing against what evidence gets offered. Fence sitters see you being lazy, and us doing work no matter how you try to twist reality.

    “Rebellion against your parents, hatred of religion or perceived intellectually superiority are not sufficient credentials. This is not a challenge, due to the fact I know what evidence you have for the task.”

    So apparently you are psychic too. You should talk to James Randi since you claim to be able to read minds and do remote viewing.

  86. on 13 May 2011 at 9:09 pm 86.Lou said …

    83.Lou said …

    “And perhaps you can easily understand it because it’s a carton.”

    Corrections – I mistakenly typed carton when it’s obviously cartoon – sorry.

  87. on 14 May 2011 at 2:40 am 87.Truett said …

    I understand the carton.

    Rosta,

    Atheists make all sorts of claims but always fall back to “we make no claims”. It is having your cake and eating it too. They claim Big Bang, and evolution all came about by magic. Poof! Time an chance produced a universe and a planet full of people. But yet! There is no proof of God. The absurdity is so delicious!

    But then, they make no claim……..yeah right. If a frog had wings they wouldn’t bump there but when they jumped. Then again, is evolution done with the frog? Hey, unicorns are not that far either.

    I am definitely with you and your sensible approach. When atheist make a case for no God, I will consider their evidence. Until then I will continue to laugh at their absurdity.

  88. on 14 May 2011 at 4:56 am 88.Severin said …

    87 Truett
    “When atheist make a case for no God, I will consider their evidence.“

    Who, the hell, are YOU to „consider“ evidences?
    Do you „consider evidences“ for electricity, mobile phones, GPS, planes…
    I don’t think you „consider evidences“ about medicine science before you go to doctors.
    DO you?

    WHY?
    You obviously TRUST science! In most cases you trust science BLINDLY! You do not doubt or question anything scientist did for you, you take everything for granted!
    Medicine heals, GPS works perfectly, planes fly, crops are 10x bigger than they were only 50 years ago, people go to moon and send their vehicles to deep space, electricity comes from broken atoms, Internet works, many diseases that were incurable only 20 years ago are successfully healed…
    You directly USE scientist’s achievments every single second of your life WITHOUT „considering evidences“!

    Then, when we come to evolution or the BB, YOU find yourself competent to “consider evidences”!
    Every semi-illiterate priest, who hardly can distinguish electron from proton, and could hardly understand what a „vector“ is, and knows nothing about simple trigonometry, not to speak biochemistry, or elementry physics, suddenly becomes more competent for evolution and BB, then scientists!

    And YOU follow those ignorants without using your own brain!

    Sad!

  89. on 14 May 2011 at 5:35 am 89.Severin said …

    Truett,
    „Atheists make all sorts of claims…They claim Big Bang, and evolution all came about by magic. Poof! Time an chance produced a universe and a planet full of people.“

    It is not „atheists“ who make those claims!
    It is the very same SCIENTISTS, who gave you electricity, GPS, atom power, medicines, higher crops…all that you benefitially USE, without looking for evidences.

    Of course, they are not so stupid to claim any “poofs”.
    Religions claim “poofs”, without ANY evidences.
    Science NEVER claimed anything like “poof universe”, “poof planet full of people”.
    RELIGIOUS BOOKS and legends claim such stupidities (see Bible, please!)

    You might call the BB a “poof”, but no one ever claimed it “poofed” from NOTHING!
    If it “poofed” it “poofed from MATTER that already existed in another form, and it poofed in accordance to laws of physics.
    Unlike biblical bullshits, you can SEE that matter and energy “flows” from one form to another: water freezes and evaporates, paper burns to ashes and gases, we get iron from iron ore that does not look like iron at all, and alumina from bauxite…

    No “poofs” in reality!
    Only in Bible.

    Chance has nothing to do with universe and with evolution. Time IS a crucial factor, NOT chance.
    If you mix 2 chemicals they will NOT react “by chance”! They will (or will not) react ONLY according to laws of physics and chemistry!
    You don’t need a “chance” to burn a peace of paper or a glass of gasoline! They will burn EVERY SINGLE TIME when you close a source of flame to them! No “chance” (“maybe they will, maybe they will not burn”)! They WILL BURN!
    -OH (a base) WILL react with –H (an acid) strictly according to laws of chemistry EVERY SINGLE TIME you mix them! They need no “chance” to react, they WILL react!

    You CAN NOT get 20 grams of water if you burn 16 g of oxigen and 4 g of hydrogen! It does NOT depend of “chance”! If you mix them, and burn them, you will get EACH TIME ONLY 18 g of water, and 2 g of hydrogen will NOT react, ever.
    No “chances” in nature!

  90. on 14 May 2011 at 1:34 pm 90.Lou said …

    87.Truett said …

    “Atheists make all sorts of claims but always fall back to “we make no claims”. It is having your cake and eating it too. They claim Big Bang, and evolution all came about by magic.”

    Are you really that stupid or do you only post stupid comments to irritate atheists?

    Big Bang and evolution aren’t “claims” at all, not even atheists’ claims.

    Evolution is a fact, it really happened, there’s no doubt about it except amongst backwards, uneducated people. Evolution is just as real as gravity is. Even the Pope has accepted that evolution is real.

    The Big Bang is practically considered fact. A Catholic priest first proposed it, not an atheist, you moron. Again, even the Pope has accepted it.

  91. on 14 May 2011 at 4:28 pm 91.Ben said …

    “Even the Pope has accepted that evolution is real.”

    Lou, you are not very intelligent. My apologies but it must be conveyed. The Pope is wrong on SO many things why would his belief matter.

    Gravity is fact. We can observe it in the present. Microevoltion is fact. We can observe it in the present.

    Macroevolution is NOT fact. It has never been observed and cannot be observed in the present. It seems obvious you only parrot Richard Dawkins and in reality know next to nothing on the subject.

    You persistent name-calling leads me to believe you are a high school student getting picked out and you must lash out at others to feel like you have some power. Accept your status as a drone try some respect for those who are superior to you.

  92. on 14 May 2011 at 4:30 pm 92.Ben said …

    “No “chances” in nature!”

    I agree Severin. Chance cannot bring about we be observe in the universe and on this little blue planet. It was designed and brought into existence by a Creator. We agree on this one.

  93. on 14 May 2011 at 5:23 pm 93.Severin said …

    91 Ben
    „The Pope is wrong on SO many things why would his belief matter.“

    YOU, on the contrary, are right in everything you say, and YOUR belief matters!

    Arrogance is so typical for ignorants!

  94. on 14 May 2011 at 5:27 pm 94.Severin said …

    92 Ben
    “We agree on this one.”

    No, we don’t!
    I never said universe was “created”.

    As you claim it was, why don’t you finally explain where the creator came from!?

    Who created him?

  95. on 14 May 2011 at 6:17 pm 95.Severin said …

    91 ben
    “Macroevolution is NOT fact.”

    Who are you to claim something like that?
    Are you an expert in biology, geology, genetics, chemistry, physics…?
    Are you COMPETENT to spread such claims around?

    You are not?
    Then HOW, the hell would you know it?
    Can you kindly elaborate your claim?
    Can you support it by some arguments?

  96. on 14 May 2011 at 8:46 pm 96.MrQ said …

    Gravity is fact. We can observe it in the present. Microevoltion is fact. We can observe it in the present.

    Ben, I thought that gravity was a theory, just like Evolution, supported by many facts. Nevertheless, you’re one baby step from acknowledging Evolution Theory with your unwavering acceptance “micro-evolution” ; whatever that is.
    It’s all for naught, though. You christians will all go to heaven when the world ends next Saturday, May 21 and the almighty zombie returns. Hope you’ve behaved yourself. I wonder why the prophet Camping has $100 million stashed away? You christians are so gullible.

  97. on 14 May 2011 at 10:15 pm 97.Hell Yeah said …

    You guys ready for Jesus to come back in a week? I know I am looking forward to waking up the next day and seeing he didn’t.

  98. on 14 May 2011 at 10:50 pm 98.Horatiio said …

    Mr Q-less

    You haven’t had your high school biology yet? Let me help you with the definition. Biology online is a great resource. Bookmark it. Ben is absolutely correct and Louis is completely wrong…..again! LOL

    http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Microevolution

    OK, now for the 21st. You atheists seem scared and obsessed LOL! It is OK. The chances are no greater for the world ending on the 21st than tomorrow. Behave yourself everyday and you never need to fear again.

  99. on 14 May 2011 at 10:53 pm 99.DPK said …

    I almost wish he would. At least then maybe people would stop blowing themselves and other people up over which invisible man is real.
    There is a not job in our town that drives around in a camper completely plastered with scripture quotes and a sign that the world is going to end on May 21st. The funniest thing is, the “May 21st” part is a changeable placard that sticks on with magnets!!!

  100. on 14 May 2011 at 11:12 pm 100.Hell Yeah said …

    The reason why I bring up May 21st is because some theists believe it and some theists don’t. The ones that don’t believe it and think it is silly that some do believe it, well, now you know how atheists think of overall theist beliefs. I find it funny how delusionists think other people with delusions are crazy, but their own delusions are totally justified.

  101. on 14 May 2011 at 11:58 pm 101.Thomas said …

    “The reason why I bring up May 21st is because some theists believe it”

    Some atheists believe in an invisible life force. Maybe we should bring that up daily.

    We have a not job in out town driving around with “there is probably no God so just live you life” sticker. I asked him to show me the probability calculations and he just stared with a confused look. It was pretty funny.

  102. on 15 May 2011 at 12:54 am 102.MrQ said …

    Hor,
    You never fail to disappoint. Maybe it’s your former alcoholic life coming back to haunt you, not firing on a lot of brain cells, are you Hor? Glug, glug….

    It’s just evolution in varying degrees…Remember your highly recommended christian website – Collins’ biologos.org . Sheesh, Hor…..How about reviewing the information again.

    Have you forgotten that evolution occurs in small steps over billions of years? Well, duh, apparently you have…Don’t tell me that you have bailed on Collins.

    OK, now for the 21st. You atheists seem scared and obsessed

    Try amused, highly AMUSED. You, like these nutty folks, operate on the fringes.

    BTW, Can you expand on your idea of HD motorcycles on beaches…I find your analogies very AMUSING. Always good for a laugh.

  103. on 15 May 2011 at 1:26 am 103.Ben said …

    Thank you Hor. I feel no need to respond to Q now. Based on his response he STILL does not know the difference between Micro and Macro.

    I think Q actually expects to find a motorcycle on the beech. Huh, why not. Less complex than a cell he believes evolved from the Big Bang soup.

    :)

  104. on 15 May 2011 at 1:44 am 104.MrQ said …

    Benny boy,
    Show me the DNA in a HD on the beach and we can talk. My god, your stupidity is showing. Ask Hor, he knows the Earth is billions of years old, he knows http://www.biologos.org has a good explanation of evolution. Check it!

    Better hope you are one of the few “good and faithful” ones on the 21st. You wouldn’t want to be left behind with all of us atheists, buddhists, muslims, satanists, etc. LOL!!

  105. on 15 May 2011 at 2:07 am 105.Hell Yeah said …

    Ben, last I knew spark plugs don’t evolve into motorcycles. Motorcylces are made up of many parts that are combined together unnaturally. Cells evolved naturally. That is the difference. Natural versus unnatural. How did your complex God get created and get complex? Did another God create him and so on? Think about that one. At some point complexity had to start from nothing. We can all call that nothing god. Does that nothing god have to have human qualities like your Christain god? No. Does the nothing god have to be watching over us? No. Would you still worship a god if you knew a god existed but once you died there was no afterlife? You believers only believe a god exists in the Christian form because you want an afterlife, so you are a slave to that wishful thinking. And Yes, humans have been good throughout history in making amazing stories up. Some, like Christianity, just seem too good to pass up.

  106. on 15 May 2011 at 2:29 am 106.Observer said …

    I believe Harold Camping is a genius if he has $100MM stashed. He is a fucking genius.

    The whole micro macro evolution thing is a canard. The macro evolution of whales is well documented by fossil discoveries from the Oligocene, Miocene, and Paleocene. I have mentioned this a couple times before, and the gormless xtians skip over that.

    I have brought this up several times, but another great perspective on the world and complexity is Ilya Prigogine. He got a Nobel Prize for his work on non-equilibrium thermodynamics. He even wrote a popular book on complexity. I will guarantee you that none of the creation crowd including the travesty running the NIH are up to understanding, let alone using his work. His research is very applicable to the notion of evolution. YET, none of the xtians dare take up his work: 1. You need to be competent at graduate level mathematics to do the work. 2. If you read about the work and understand what it does, you don’t need to master it, it explains nature incredibly well, and it crushes the notion of determinism which is the salient notion of the Abrahamic God (and his wish-fulfilling Jewish Zombie son).

  107. on 15 May 2011 at 2:50 am 107.Observer said …

    #101 Thomas. What a dipshit. The reason the guy looked at you like you are a dumbass is because it is a dumbass question. I will show you the calculation:

    U = { universe }

    n = { empty set or null set }

    Define G = { set of testable evidence for the Abrahamic god }

    intersection(A,B) = { members of both A and B }
    union(A,B) = { all A and B }
    Define P as the probability measure such that
    P(U) = 1, P(n) = 0, if intersection(A,B)=0, then P(intersection(A,B)) = P(A)+P(B), (etc.).

    SO, the calculation is rather simple:

    P(G) = P( null set ) = 0.

    Thomas, you are a disgrace to your name.

  108. on 15 May 2011 at 5:33 am 108.Severin said …

    101 Thomas
    “I asked him to show me the probability calculations and he just stared with a confused look. It was pretty funny.”

    You claim there is god?
    You are positive god exists?

    Give us, please some calculations that support your belief.
    It should be simple for you to support your belief with some simple (or complicated?) calculations!

    Don’t you just stare with a confused look!

  109. on 15 May 2011 at 5:39 am 109.Severin said …

    103 Ben
    “Based on his response he STILL does not know the difference between Micro and Macro.”

    Good for Horatio!
    Because there are no such things like “micro” and “macro” evolution.

    You have to elaborate your opinion, not to just spread your bullshit claims around.
    Again: are you an EXPERT?
    Experts do not just CLAIM. They support their claims with arguments.

  110. on 15 May 2011 at 2:14 pm 110.Anonymous said …

    #101, Thom
    “Some atheists believe in an invisible life force.”

    Wrong….Belief in “invisible life forces” describes xtians most perfectly.

  111. on 15 May 2011 at 3:38 pm 111.Lou said …

    91.Ben said …

    “Macroevolution is NOT fact. It has never been observed and cannot be observed in the present.”

    Your comment about macroevolution is so utterly ridiculous that it really doesn’t justify a reply.

    Evolution, micro or macro, is fact – period. The scientific community doesn’t debate it. They may debate about how evolution, micro or macro, occurred. They may debate the two definitions, but it’s not debatable that it
    happened.

    If you can’t accept reality, why don’t you stay in a cave somewhere, preferably one without an inet connection, and wait-out the second coming?

  112. on 15 May 2011 at 3:47 pm 112.Lou said …

    91.Ben said …

    “The Pope is wrong on SO many things why would his belief matter.”

    Because it demonstrates that even somebody who believes in magical gods – “wrong on SO many things (you identify with that?),” has a chance to understand some scientific facts. Care to join him? Even some clown who dresses in ridiculous religious attire and who’s the leader of a religion that has for centuries back-tracked on almost every opposition to science it made finally accepts when it’s wrong. Even the pope, who’s “so wrong on SO many things (your words)” gets it, but you don’t.

  113. on 15 May 2011 at 7:11 pm 113.Joshua said …

    @ Truett 87

    “Atheists make all sorts of claims but always fall back to “we make no claims”. It is having your cake and eating it too.”

    Name the atheist. I’ll bet you can’t because we do make claims, but the claims are about the arguments put forth to demonstrate god, and we make claims about the evidence for the big bang and such. What we don’t do is make claims about god not existing because what we do is disbelieve your claims.

    “They claim Big Bang, and evolution all came about by magic. Poof! Time an chance produced a universe and a planet full of people.”

    You have been told repeatedly that the “time and chance” description is wrong. You are a dishonest commenter if you continue to use this.

    “But yet! There is no proof of God. The absurdity is so delicious! “

    Another bit of BS. What we say is that we find the evidence for god unsatisfactory.

    “I am definitely with you and your sensible approach. When atheist make a case for no God, I will consider their evidence. Until then I will continue to laugh at their absurdity.”

    You might as well leave then because we will not do your job for you. You have a claim that god exists. We do not believe you. That’s all there is to it. There is no sense in sticking around here because you just make your side look bad.

  114. on 15 May 2011 at 7:21 pm 114.DPK said …

    “If a frog had wings they wouldn’t bump there but when they jumped. Then again, is evolution done with the frog? Hey, unicorns are not that far either.”

    Ok, I have no idea what this even means. What stuff are you smoking dude?

    “When atheist make a case for no God, I will consider their evidence. Until then I will continue to laugh at their absurdity.”

    Read your sentence again and replace “no God” with “no Santa Claus” and you will see how absurd your position is.

  115. on 15 May 2011 at 7:27 pm 115.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 91

    “Macroevolution is NOT fact. It has never been observed and cannot be observed in the present.
    Here is that link again,
    http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/xwpvw.jpg?w=450&h=206

    Most murders have not been observed but we still can make claims about them and who might have done them. We can do this because of the one thing that the theists will not do here 99% of the time, discuss the evidence. Just as there is evidence in the present about murders in the past, so too has the ancient past left evidence for us in the form of fossils, radiometric dating, DNA and protein sequence, comparative anatomy, and other areas.

    There is only one difference between microevolution and macroevolution, time. Take lots of microevolution and stretch it out millions and billions of years and you get macroevolution. The theists here love to go on and on about how much macroevolution can’t exist but I have never seen them discuss say the fossils from lobed finned fishes to tetrapods or the sequence of whale ancestors that show nostrils slowly migrating up to the back of the head. Whatever explanation they want to replace evolution, it must also explain these stories that scientists have put together as well. OR they need to actually look at the stories and show why they are wrong. But they never will so they end up looking ridiculous.
    “It seems obvious you only parrot Richard Dawkins and in reality know next to nothing on the subject.”

    Unless you can dig up the Richard quote and show how Lou is parroting it I simply do not believe you. You are just making an excuse to avoid addressing the substance of his comments.
    “You persistent name-calling leads me to believe you are a high school student getting picked out and you must lash out at others to feel like you have some power. Accept your status as a drone try some respect for those who are superior to you.”

    I can do something that looks like name-calling but is not because it is descriptive. It will probably go over Ben’s head though. Ben you are a hypocrite. For someone to claim that another person is name calling and then go on to name call as well (drone) is despicable. But please go on, you are a great example for fence sitters that might be reading along.

  116. on 15 May 2011 at 7:29 pm 116.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 92
    “It was designed and brought into existence by a Creator.”

    How do you know this. We can recognize human design because we have been raised with a lifetime of encounters with objects of human design and experiences with humans designing and building. When have you seen a universe and a planet being designed?

  117. on 15 May 2011 at 7:37 pm 117.Joshua said …

    @ Thomas 101
    “Some atheists believe in an invisible life force. Maybe we should bring that up daily.”

    Since atheism is a single position on a single claim (no god belief) you can find atheists in every category you can imagine. There are republican atheists, democrat atheists, Ann Rand and Karl Marx were both atheists. Just because one atheist does something weird doesn’t mean anything. Theists however are defined by their weirdness because those are positive beliefs that can be acted upon.

    “We have a not job in out town driving around with “there is probably no God so just live you life” sticker. I asked him to show me the probability calculations and he just stared with a confused look. It was pretty funny.”

    I would have given you a funny look too. That does not make any sense. Religions that make god claims describe the world as looking one way, atheists look at the world and see that the world is not what theists claim. There for some atheists feel justified in claiming that there is probably no god. You do not need a calculation because if your religion were correct the world would look different than it does.

  118. on 15 May 2011 at 8:07 pm 118.Joshua said …

    @ Horatiio 98 and Thomas 103
    Wow you guys are lazy. MrQ does not know the definition for microevolution so you assume (but do not demonstrate) that he does not know what he is talking about. You have to actually make an argument to demonstrate that he does not know what he is talking about. You know, like I have repeatedly done and you have repeatedly refused to respond to.

    In reality I have rarely heard actual evolutionary biologists use the terms microevolution and macroevolution because they are not very useful to them. They are the same thing except that one is over long time scales. There is nothing wrong with how MrQ has been discussing evolution, he clearly knows more about it than you two.

  119. on 15 May 2011 at 9:40 pm 119.Lou said …

    101.Thomas said …

    “We have a not job in out town driving around with “there is probably no God so just live you life” sticker. I asked him to show me the probability calculations… ”

    There’s something wrong with this on several levels.

    First, I don’t believe it happened.

    Second, if it did happen as you describe, then you’ve demonstrated that there’s something seriously wrong with you. It would NEVER occur to me or any normal person with reasonable judgement to confront someone, especially a “n[u]t job,” about a BUMPER STICKER.

    Third, assuming the second, then the fact that you would admit to doing what you did on an inet forum while arguing an unrelated point further demonstrates your faulty thought process.

    So which is it? Are you a liar or are you the “not job?”

    “…and he just stared with a confused look. It was pretty funny.”

    REALLY? What would you expect, dumb-ass?! I would have done the same while dialing 911 to report a “not job” accosting me about a bumper sticker while rambling about “probability calculations?” Were you also waving your arms in the air?

  120. on 16 May 2011 at 2:30 am 120.Scott said …

    “When have you seen a universe and a planet being designed?”

    A very stupid argument. When have you watched a universe come into existence without a creator? I would like to hear all about it.

    Wow, how stupid this guy is……

    Lou, may I add all of your ramblings are just stupidity too? How ironic we have you and your stupidity attacking the wit of others.

  121. on 16 May 2011 at 2:52 am 121.Scott said …

    “There is only one difference between microevolution and macroevolution, time”

    Another hilariously stupid statement. One is within a species the other is across species. That is like saying:

    “The only difference between swimming across my pool and swimming Ponchatrain is time”.

    I think Josh is a Christian attempting to make atheist look stupid.
    I would suggest a dictionary if you are really this challenged. Stupid is an observation. Look that up as well.

  122. on 16 May 2011 at 4:58 am 122.MrQ said …

    Scott #121:

    “There is only one difference between microevolution and macroevolution, time”
    Another hilariously stupid statement. One is within a species the other is across species.

    So you agree that evolution, at a “micro” level occurs? As does Hor, Ben and some of the others posting here. I call it evolution but, whatever – We all agree that living creatures change in some way due to genetic shifting or variations over time. You claim that it is always change within a species.

    We can all agree that the planet Earth is billions of years old. Not just thousands or millions, but billions of years old. Hor is on record as saying the planet Earth is 4.5 billion years old, I have no problem with that.

    We can all agree that at some point in our planet’s past, life arose. You say god (supernatural) was the spark, other folks say natural causes (abiogenesis) sparked life. But this is not relevant to a discussion of evolution. Just mentioning it in passing.

    Feel free to jump in and correct or add to the dialog. How are we doing? Everyone agree? Let’s get the ball rolling on a discussion of evolution, macro and micro….

  123. on 16 May 2011 at 5:39 am 123.Severin said …

    121 Scot
    “One is within a species the other is across species.”

    Wow! Another expert!
    Can you please refer to your scientific articles? Your works?

    Look here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

  124. on 16 May 2011 at 6:08 am 124.Severin said …

    121 Scot
    “The only difference between swimming across my pool and swimming Ponchatrain (Pontchatrain = Chatrain Bridg) is time”

    Basically: yes!

    Whales can not evolve from hypos, hypos can not evolve from whales.
    Whales and hypos had common ancestors.
    It took TIME for this ancestors to “branche” to two (or more) different species. Then ancestors dissapeared, beacuse they could not survive changes that new species were able to survive. Their successors become better addapted to specific changes in their enviroment, and survived.

    When species had NO time to addapt, up to 95% of all species did not survive (catastrophic events).

    ALL living species have ancestors.
    SOME dead species have living successors.
    Evolution is a huge tree with most branches being dead.
    The process is going on today.
    Too slowly to be observed, but it does.

  125. on 16 May 2011 at 6:12 am 125.Severin said …

    124 Severin

    “ALL living species have ancestors” = “All living species have COMMON ancestors”

  126. on 16 May 2011 at 1:27 pm 126.DPK said …

    What most creationists fail to grasp is the “common ancestor” idea. I have had ne challenge me “well why don’t we see monkeys turning into humans today?”
    The key to realize is we are not so much decended FROM apes… we ARE apes. Apes that share a common ancestor with other apes who also evolved into their current form. Remember too, that we were not the only species of hominids. There were other, now extinct, species of hominids. The simple fact that we have different races of humans today point to the fact that evolution occurred. If god created Adam and Eve, how did we get Asians, Caucasians, Blacks, etc, etc…
    Scott… is “stupid” the only word you can think of? Do you think you can win an argument by ignoring facts and direct challenges to your claims by simply calling the other person “stupid”? Your ignorance is showing.

  127. on 16 May 2011 at 4:53 pm 127.Lou said …

    120.Scott said …

    “Lou, may I add all of your ramblings are just stupidity too? How ironic we have you and your stupidity attacking the wit of others.”

    You think Thomas 101 B.S. story is “wit?!” WOW!

    Then no, you can’t add anything about MY “ramblings” because you obviously don’t know the difference between wit and ramblings.

  128. on 16 May 2011 at 7:54 pm 128.Lou said …

    126.DPK said …

    “If god created Adam and Eve, how did we get Asians, Caucasians, Blacks, etc, etc…”

    It’s obvious – the Asian god created Asians, the Caucasian god created Caucasians, the Blacks god created Black, etc., etc.

    :>)

  129. on 16 May 2011 at 8:45 pm 129.Burebista said …

    Let me make it simple for the atheists. Where did the fist cell come from?

    No, even simpler. Where did the first seed come from?

    Unless you are providing solid facts not speculation please do not respond.

    Thanks

  130. on 16 May 2011 at 8:56 pm 130.DPK said …

    Burbesta,
    Short answer, we’re not sure. Shorter answer.. neither are YOU.
    Here is the best description of perhaps where the first cell came from that is actually supported by evidence, not a made up fairy tale:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    I doubt you’ll read it though. It doesn’t begin with “Once Upon a Time.”

    You remind me of the people who said “Man will never fly” and “There can be nothing smaller than the atom.”
    You assume things you cannot assume and you are always proven wrong.

  131. on 16 May 2011 at 8:59 pm 131.DPK said …

    Burebista,
    Short answer, we’re not sure. Shorter answer.. neither are YOU.
    Here is the best description of perhaps where the first cell came from that is actually supported by evidence, not a made up fairy tale:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    I doubt you’ll read it though. It doesn’t begin with “Once Upon a Time.”

    You remind me of the people who said “Man will never fly” and “There can be nothing smaller than the atom.”
    You assume things you cannot assume and you are always proven wrong.

    And Burebista, if YOU are not going to provide SOLID FACTS in response, rather than just speculation… please keep your mouth shut. I mean, you, of all people, have a huge set of balls to come on here and demand nothing but facts…. when have you EVER provided one fact, or even responded to even one argument here? Never, in my recollection.

  132. on 16 May 2011 at 9:07 pm 132.MrQ said …

    #129 Bur
    I thought we were trying to discuss micro/macro evolution here; not “where did the first cell come from”. Maybe we go there after we discuss EVOLUTION, macro and micro.

    See my entry #122 regarding origins of life:

    not relevant to a discussion of evolution.

    Why are you so dense?

  133. on 16 May 2011 at 9:56 pm 133.Burebista said …

    Well DPK had to post an article on Abio. I stated facts DPK! You guys must have the facts, remember? No God because because there is no proof! Such hypocrites.

    You wasted my time. Anyone else?

  134. on 16 May 2011 at 10:20 pm 134.MrQ said …

    Bur,
    Let’s find the common ground. See post #122 above. If you don’t want to talk macro/micro evolution go waste your time elsewhere. Bye now.

  135. on 16 May 2011 at 10:59 pm 135.DPK said …

    Buribesta,
    I am glad you finally admit that there is no proof for god. Thank you, I know that has been a difficult journey for you.
    Now, lets talk about facts vs evidence. Abiogenesis (it’s not that hard to spell, you don’t have to call it Abio really. I know you have trouble with long words) is the current theory that has the most promise and best fits the evidence we have at hand. Even if you by into panspermia theory, abiogenesis had to have occurred elsewhere.
    But, lets be honest now, if some scientist tomorrow created a living cell from organic compounds, you would not accept that as proof that life could have formed on its own. You would say, “well, you needed a scientist to make the living cell… that’s proof that you need a creator.. god. No matter what facts or evidence or compelling argument you are presented with, you will not hear it because you are a closed minded and stubborn dogmatist.
    So, where are YOUR facts? Where is YOUR evidence? Where are YOUR compelling arguments? Where is YOUR answer?
    Of course your entire position is not based on any FACTS at all. Yours is based on faith in a magical being. And, while you cannot accept that a cell may have formed naturally from compounds that we know already exist in nature, you have no problem believing that a god, infinitely complex, sprang into being with no creator.
    Now go away and wait for your next opportunity to make yourself look foolish.

  136. on 16 May 2011 at 11:41 pm 136.DPK said …

    134.MrQ said …

    “Bur,
    Let’s find the common ground. See post #122 above. If you don’t want to talk macro/micro evolution go waste your time elsewhere. Bye now.”

    You are wasting your breath. You will never get him to discuss anything that relates to actual evidence for or against anything.
    Take my last post. He asked for FACTS regarding the genesis of life on earth. I gave him FACTS. The facts are, no one knows. I don’t know, and neither does he. No one will ever “know” because no one was here 4.7 billion years ago to witness. The best we can do is examine the evidence and try to explain in ways that fits the evidence.
    These theists that lurk here don’t like to think about things and discuss evidence. It makes them very nervous, because when they start to think a bit, their world becomes very shaky. So they resort to dismissing stuff out of hand. Did you notice that Buribesta did not comment or refute on ANYTHING in the link I presented on abiogenesis? Do you think he even read it? Of course not! He looked at the title and decided it was worthless, because he already KNOWS that “god did it.”
    So, you will not get a discussion out of him, or most of the other theists here. Next will come some “LOL’s”… then they will quote scripture at you. Then, they will either shut up until the questions are forgotten, or they will offer to pray for you so that you may see the light.

  137. on 16 May 2011 at 11:46 pm 137.Hell Yeah said …

    Bur said,
    “Let me make it simple for the atheists. Where did the fist cell come from?
    No, even simpler. Where did the first seed come from?”

    Where did your god come from? If you think inteligent design like your god can create itself, then there is your answer to where the first cell/seed came from, just with the middleman, or middleit, god cut out of the equation. To make it simpler for you to understand, whatever created your god from your point of view is what created the first cell/seed.

  138. on 17 May 2011 at 12:01 am 138.Horatiio said …

    Bure,

    Good One. As you can see, no answer. Not even for a seed. LOL

    They are so gullible. They actually believe science supports their fairytale but obviously it does not.

    Lets see. We observe design and creation in our world by man.

    We observe things creating themselves in….uh……well no where other than in atheists imaginations.

  139. on 17 May 2011 at 12:33 am 139.Hell Yeah said …

    Fairy tale is a type of short narrative that typically features such folkloric characters, such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants or gnomes, and usually magic or enchantments. However, only a small number of the stories thus designated explicitly refer to fairies. The stories may nonetheless be distinguished from other folk narratives such as legends (which generally involve belief in the veracity of the events described)[1] and explicitly moral tales, including beast fables.

    So, based on the definition of a fairy tale, which is more like a fairy tale? Mythical gods and magical characters or the non-belief of them? The bible sure seems like a fairy tale book, doesn’t it?

  140. on 17 May 2011 at 12:44 am 140.MrQ said …

    OK Hor,
    Before we get to the micro/macro evolution stuff, let’s just look at early Earth life.

    For arguments sake, I will say that I don’t know how life BEGAN on Earth and I will accept that by some unknown force or event (you call it god) we had life on our planet some 3 to 4 BILLION years ago.

    Can I now ask some questions? Can we start investigating and thinking about the early life forms that god created?

    We can both agree that humans/horses/wolves/dinosaurs were not a part of early Earth life. If a god created life on this planet, we can both agree that the different species of life which exist, or have ever existed, on our planet were NOT all created 3 to 4 BILLION years ago.

    Hor, correct the information if I have it wrong….We’ll continue after that.

  141. on 17 May 2011 at 1:19 am 141.Burebista said …

    Horatio

    I never expected an answer where the first seed came from. But at a minimum they now realize their presuppositions are lacking. There had to be that first seed that first tree. How did this simple cycle begin. Many questions and many theories and a Creator is real and distinct possibility. I would even say likely. Mr Q, was is macroevolution? Abiogenesis? Doesn’t seem likely does it Mr Q?

  142. on 17 May 2011 at 1:54 am 142.Hell Yeah said …

    “There had to be that first seed that first tree. How did this simple cycle begin.”

    Your god had to have a beginning too then, right? You guys keep on dodging that.

  143. on 17 May 2011 at 2:04 am 143.Hell Yeah said …

    Also, just because you think there had to be a creator, how does that translate to an afterlife? Would you be okay if your god was real, but the afterlife isn’t? What I am trying to get at is the whole reason why you worship your god is because you think you will have an afterlife, but your whole main reason you think a god exists is because you think we had to be created by one, but I guess what I am trying to get at here is how does creation and afterlife relate to each other? Would it matter if there is a god or not if the afterlife isn’t real? What is your take?

  144. on 17 May 2011 at 2:21 am 144.MrQ said …

    Bur,
    Did god create that first seed 3 billion years ago? Hmmmm….I wonder.

    Hor, what do you say. Apple trees been around for 3 billion years?

  145. on 17 May 2011 at 2:35 am 145.Lou said …

    141.Burebista said …

    “But at a minimum they now realize their presuppositions are lacking.”

    (sigh) I guess you NEVER will get it. Atheists understand that religious “presuppositions (god)are lacking.” Why can’t you understand that simple concept? You always seem to get things wrong.

    “Many questions and many theories and a Creator is real and distinct possibility.”

    Except that there isn’t unless there’s some evidence for one, and there isn’t. So except as an act of faith and/or in a delusion, a creator is NOT a “real and distinct possibility.”

  146. on 17 May 2011 at 2:37 am 146.Lou said …

    on 16 May 2011 at 8:45 pm 129.Burebista said …

    “Let me make it simple for the atheists. Where did the fist cell come from?”

    Of course, like most your comments, this has nothing to do with atheism.

    But the answer is that cells evolved from replicating molecules that evolved from organic molecules.

    Now, back to the topic that you and your ilk always try to deflect with irrelevant comments – where is the evidence for god?

  147. on 17 May 2011 at 2:41 am 147.DPK said …

    138.Horatiio said …

    “Bure,

    Good One. As you can see, no answer. Not even for a seed. LOL”

    Told you the LOL’s and out of hand dismissal would be next. They are so absurdly predictable.
    If either of these geniuses had bothered to even skim the very brief article I had referenced, they would realize how stupid their “seed” argument was.
    Guys… here’s what you are missing. Life did not start with a seed. It started with chemistry. There was no chance involved. Chemical reactions do not happen by chance, they happen according to natural laws. All it takes is the right ingredients, the right conditions, and sufficient time.
    Now, since you guys are so bent on having nothing presented but FACTS… how about your provide some. “LOL” doesn’t count.

    Yeah… didn’t think so.

  148. on 17 May 2011 at 2:50 am 148.Lou said …

    138.Horatiio said …

    “We observe things creating themselves in….uh……well no where other than in atheists imaginations.”

    Really? Too bad your parents didn’t only imagine you.

    Self-replication is the definition of life, and it was the beginning of its evolution.

  149. on 17 May 2011 at 6:10 am 149.Severin said …

    129 Burebista
    “Unless you are providing solid facts not speculation please do not respond.”

    When could we kindly expect more or less solid facts obout god?
    ANY facts?

  150. on 17 May 2011 at 6:20 am 150.Severin said …

    138 Horatio
    “Good One. As you can see, no answer. Not even for a seed. LOL”

    Pathetic!
    Why don’t you try to finally tell us your answers for god?
    What is it that makes you think god exists?
    I might trust you if you replaced your “lols” with some arguments.
    You obviousl have nothing but “lols” to say, and it is very sad. No “lols”.

  151. on 17 May 2011 at 6:31 am 151.Severin said …

    141 Burebista
    “Doesn’t seem likely does it Mr Q?”

    No, not really!
    It seems more likely that a creator who was never created, poofed universe from nothing some 13.5 billion years ago.
    Then he came to solar system, poofed the earth from nothing, made man from dirt and woman from his rib, and ordered their children to fuck each other to make more children.

    Sounds absolutely logical. It must have happened THAT way!

    Burebista, do you, or don’t you believe in Bible?
    Horatio does not, you two do NOT belong to the same world, in case you take the Bible seriously!
    WHAT do you two have in common?

  152. on 17 May 2011 at 11:01 am 152.Burebista said …

    “Life did not start with a seed. It started with chemistry.”

    DPK, brillant! Except I never claimed life started with a seed. OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.

    If you do have an answer for the seed you can share that as well.

  153. on 17 May 2011 at 11:42 am 153.MrQ said …

    Bur

    I never claimed life started with a seed

    Looks like we can all agree on this.

    Now, Bur, did a god create life with an instalment plan or was it a one day creation event? Eventually we’ll come to some more conclusions and get into a micro/macro evolution discussion …carry on with your brilliant observations.

  154. on 17 May 2011 at 1:08 pm 154.JohnnyP said …

    And ’round and ’round we go…

    C’mon, guys, seriously? Do you reeeally think you’re going to make even a dent in the Christian Bubble Of Denial?

    You have to understand why they cling so desperately to their belief system: Take away Jesus, and you take away their afterlife, their vengeance against those they hate, the justification for that hate, their notion that they’re superior, their perceived protection against the Powers Of Darkness.

    No reason, logic, facts, or rationale has that kind of power. It’s like explaining “red” to a blind man.

  155. on 17 May 2011 at 2:39 pm 155.DPK said …

    “No reason, logic, facts, or rationale has that kind of power. It’s like explaining “red” to a blind man.”

    Not really. Most secular people started out with religious indoctrination. There is hope. And remember, the point may be lost on the few rusted bolts here, but they may have an influence on other lurkers reading here who’s mind may be more receptive to reason.
    “DPK, brillant! Except I never claimed life started with a seed.”
    Ok.. good. You ARE making progress! First you admit there is no proof for god, now you acknowledge that living forms evolved from simpler forms. Keep thinking!
    Seriously, you want me to explain to you how heavier elements are formed in the cores of supernova and how elements combine to form molecules? Sorry, you need to learn that for yourself. Get out your high school chemistry text and review it. It would do you a world of good.

  156. on 17 May 2011 at 3:00 pm 156.Lou said …

    152.Burebista said …

    “OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.”

    Get this through your thick skull – this is not the how did life start blog.

    “About this blog

    WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com is a web site that explores the existence of God. This blog accompanies the site and explores God and religion in our world today.”

    Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of god. YOU and your ilk are those who digress from the topics of this blog. If you have some evidence or facts about the evidence of god, then present it. Otherwise, stop posting stupid comments about other topics that you use only to deflect the fact that you have nothing relevant to add to the topic – THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, not evolution. We already know that evolution is a FACT. Your ignorant comments to contrary are IRRELEVANT.

  157. on 17 May 2011 at 3:23 pm 157.Lou said …

    155.DPK said …

    “Most secular people started out with religious indoctrination.”

    Yes, but they don’t have the religion gene like some of these guys here who so obviously demonstrate as if they’re somehow proud of it.

    “There is hope.”

    Not for them.

    “And remember, the point may be lost on the few rusted bolts here, but they may have an influence on other lurkers reading here who’s mind may be more receptive to reason.”

    True. If nothing else, their idiot comments serve as a constant reminder of “how religion poisons everything,” including rational, logical thought.

  158. on 17 May 2011 at 4:55 pm 158.DPK said …

    Yes, you’re right. Logical points are lost on many of them. The larger point they just don’t seem to appreciate is that even if science doesn’t have a ready answer to their question, that doesn’t mean the one they just made up is right. Even if science was somehow proven completely, 100% wrong about something like, the big bang, or evolution, that doesn’t mean their fairy tales are therefore true.
    Kinda reminds me of ancient people who trembled in fear of the erupting volcano. Just because they didn’t understand plate tectonics and geology, didn’t mean there really WAS an angry god living in the volcano.
    I know where Burebista is trying to take this. He wants someone to admit that science does not fully understand exactly how the first living cell developed. He will then jump in with “the god of the gaps” argument and claim that since science doesn’t know, that is proof that god did it, and therefore that god exists. Sadly, they do not understand that the ONLY thing that that actually demonstrates is that science has only just begun to understand. In science, it’s perfectly acceptable to say “we don’t know.” Not in religion. Religion always claims the gaps in learning for their god. That is why religions have historically fought against progress in science and understanding. The more reason reveals to us, the smaller the turf left for their magical beings.

  159. on 17 May 2011 at 5:12 pm 159.Lou said …

    158.DPK said …

    “I know where Burebista is trying to take this. He wants someone to admit that science does not fully understand exactly how the first living cell developed.”

    Of course he is. It’s obvious and somewhat humorous to watch him as he thinks he’s sneaking down that path. But the big flaw in his tactic is that first living cell actually existed, whereas god doesn’t, or at least there’s no evidence for god. In response to his juvenile approach, we could ask how did god develop? But that reply is also flawed because there is no god or even any evidence for god, so there’s no reason to ask how god developed.

  160. on 17 May 2011 at 10:43 pm 160.Horatiio said …

    “OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.”

    LOL, Bure they just are not much for answers are they? They are better at discussing people.

    They can’t answer such basic questions but they claim God does not exist. They need much better dogma to attract more parishioners.

  161. on 17 May 2011 at 10:56 pm 161.MrQ said …

    LOL-Hor,
    I don’t blame you for avoiding the macro/micro evolution discussion. You know how that would end up for you.

    You have not disagreed with or challenged any of the points I have entered previously. (see posts #122 and #140 above). I can only take it that you concur. GREAT!!!

    I do understand that the Jayzus thing is what keeps you from returning to hard drinking times. No reason to ask too many questions or think too hard. AA does work, from what I am told.

  162. on 18 May 2011 at 12:11 am 162.DPK said …

    160.Horatiio said …

    “OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.”

    LOL, Bure they just are not much for answers are they? They are better at discussing people.”

    Not much for reading are you? I answered his question in 155. How come we NEVER hear anything from you in the way of facts, logical arguments, rational explanations, or anything beyond “LOL”. Is that the sum total of your reasoning ability? A woeful chuckle?
    You are not doing your “side” any favors by sounding like a dimwit. LOL……….

  163. on 18 May 2011 at 2:04 am 163.Lou said …

    160.Horatiio said …

    “OK, since you digress where did the first chemicals come from? We are getting even simpler.”

    “LOL, Bure they just are not much for answers are they? They are better at discussing people.”

    Hey dummy, read my reply in 156. It applies to you, too.

    We’re not here to discuss evolution or people. We’re here to discuss the existence of god, not to read your irrelevant comments that are merely a smokescreen for your lack of any evidence or reasonable, legitimate argument for god’s existence.

  164. on 18 May 2011 at 2:07 am 164.Lou said …

    163.Lou said …

    Hor – “We’re here to discuss the existence of god, not to read your irrelevant comments that are merely a smokescreen for your lack of any evidence or reasonable, legitimate argument for god’s existence.”

    I retract that statement and correct it – “…your lack of any evidence or reasonable, legitimate argument for ANYTHING.”

  165. on 18 May 2011 at 2:10 am 165.Hell Yeah said …

    “we could ask how did god develop? But that reply is also flawed because there is no god or even any evidence for god, so there’s no reason to ask how god developed.”

    Actually, I think it is good to ask them this question just to see how they would answer it. We know there is no answer, but I want to see how they get around it since they truly believe in this god that it had to create everything, but yet their god had to be created at some point too, which brings everything back to the big question, how did everything begin. So, let’s hear their answer.

    I also want an answer to the question I posed about would having a god matter if there was no afterlife. I bet you they would not worship a god if they knew there was no afterlife. That should be the main question on this website. We can call the beginning god, whatever that is, but where does the afterlife fit in other than through fairy tales?

  166. on 18 May 2011 at 1:41 pm 166.Lou said …

    165.Hell Yeah said …

    “We can call the beginning god, whatever that is, but where does the afterlife fit in other than through fairy tales?”

    As you know, the obvious answer is there is no afterlife. I don’t understand why people have a problem accepting that. After all, every person who’s ever lived and is alive today has already experienced not being alive. Before we were born we didn’t exist. Therefore, we had no consciousness – we didn’t know what we were missing. EXACTLY the same thing will happen upon death. We will cease to exist, we won’t have consciousness, we won’t know what we are missing.

    It’s amazing that this extremely simple concept, the only certain part of our existence, has caused so much fear and consternation when there’s absolutely nothing unknown about it.

    It is said we can’t know that there’s no afterlife. Be we do know, because there’s no “before-life.” Afterlife and “before-life” are the exact same thing – non-existence.

    Simple, simple, simple.

  167. on 18 May 2011 at 3:16 pm 167.Joshua said …

    @ Scott 120-121
    Shorter Scott.
    “I don’t like it so instead of arguing against it I’m gonna call it suupid! Waaaaaa!”

    At least I am making an argument instead of unsupported assertions. ID and creationism is similar to people who are obsessed with crazy conspiracy theories. It is seeing patterns where none exist because our ancestors survived more often when they thought a lion what there when there really was not, rather than not thinking there was a lion there when there really was. So we tend to get more false positives when thinking of explanations for things.

    Paley did not think deeply enough when he discussed discovering a watch on a beach. It is true that we would think it was designed. But this is because we have been raised in a society where we are constantly surrounded by things designed by humans (and sometimes animals) so we internalize the determinants of human design. This is why it would be obvious that Paley’s watch on the beach was designed.

    But his argument breaks down with “design” in nature. It is not obvious because we have not been exposed to design in nature, supernatural or otherwise. To make the claim that something in nature is designed you have to have a frame of reference (previous exposure to human design for watches). Without a frame of reference you cannot demonstrate that anything in nature is designed beyond things that humans in the biological sciences have tinkered with.

    “One is within a species the other is across species.”

    The linked definitions said “subspecies”. As time goes on and more and more differences accumulate between the subspecies populations their descendents make up new species, genera (containing different species) and higher. For example dogs and bears are closely related.

    1. Millions of years ago the common ancestor (CA) population for dogs (D) and bears (B) was split and the descendents of those populations went through a small amount of evolution which resulted in them becoming different species. This is what has been described as microevolution and has been observed in plants, fish, animals…

    2. As time goes on those new species (Dog common ancestor, DCA, and bear common ancestor BCA) had descendent populations that accumulated yet more differences and yielded new species within them (D1, D2 foxes, jackals, wolves) (B1, B2, Grizzly, Black bears) and made these new species even more different from the common ancestor, and the common ancestor of the other branch. Now we are getting into macroevolution.

    3. The above demonstrates that your description is true, and mine is true. For changes within species to yield changes above the level of species only requires more time.

  168. on 18 May 2011 at 3:24 pm 168.Joshua said …

    @ Severin 124
    “Then ancestors dissapeared, beacuse they could not survive changes that new species were able to survive.”

    DPK 126
    “There were other, now extinct, species of hominids.”

    Just to expand, remember that the ancestral population does not always dies off, it too continues to evolve as time goes on. They disappear from the fossil records because their descendants look different.

  169. on 18 May 2011 at 5:44 pm 169.Matt said …

    Horatio & Burbesta,

    Thanks for the thought provoking questions. I know sometimes I need a reminder of how much we really don’t know even though our knowledge has increased exponentially in the last decade.

    Sometimes it comes back to the simplest questions to bring us back into reality.

  170. on 18 May 2011 at 7:39 pm 170.Lou said …

    169.Matt said …

    Horatio & Burbesta,

    “Thanks for the thought provoking questions.”

    Really? REALLY?! Those were thought provoking questions for you?

    “I know sometimes I need a reminder of how much we really don’t know even though our knowledge has increased exponentially in the last decade.”

    What you need is a reminder of how much YOU really don’t know, not WE.

    “Sometimes it comes back to the simplest questions to bring us back into reality.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ax96iVmTCI

  171. on 18 May 2011 at 7:46 pm 171.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 129

    “No, even simpler. Where did the first seed come from?”

    First I want to point out the rhetorical nature of the question. I see creationists and ID supporters do this all the time. Point to a really big issue that is not well understood YET and is hard to answer without going into the literature, and when they are told that they are still studying this, or they do not have a good answer yet, they declare victory. (I am speaking in general terms so some of this may not apply to Burebista).

    This is dishonest for three main reasons.

    1. They ignore the fact that when you are addressing issues on the cutting edge of science there will be a lot of “I don’t know” and “There is not sure answer” and “There are several competing explanations” as answers. This is not a weakness, this is normal for science. Of course there are things we do not know yet, that is why we do science. Of course it takes time be sure of the explanations we test. None of this means that their explanation is correct, they need their own evidence for that.

    2. They ignore explanation for things with a lot of support and wide agreement in science like the origin of birds, reptiles, whales, and lots of other areas that are more easily discussed by evolution supporters, and contradict creationism.

    3. They assume there is no answer when in reality they could look it up for themselves instead of getting others to do the work. When folks make stupid assertions with no knowledge, they look dumb when someone answers.

    The intent (conscious or unconscious) is to make it look like they are winning by making a really quick, low effort comment/question that requires more effort to answer. If it goes unanswered they look like they are winning. Fortunately I was curious about this myself so I did not mind sharing my findings when I looked this up.

    Here is a review discussing the current literature on the origin of seeds. I will discuss it below.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406407

  172. on 18 May 2011 at 7:47 pm 172.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 129 continued…

    Here is the text.
    http://www.seedbiology.de/pdf/TansleyLinkies2010.pdf

    To properly understand the research one must discuss the data which is in the papers that are listed at the end of the review. Reviews are really useful because they are summaries of the current state of research in a particular area, usually written by the biggest experts in the field in question. I will summarize a little bit of what the paper says has been found, but if Burebista wants to discuss some of this evidence we need to get specific about what aspect so specific papers can be looked at. This we don’t waste huge amounts of time.

    The most relevant portion of this review is the fourth section, “Early seed-like structures and the transition to seeds”.

    In general, around 370 million years ago in the late Devonian era several changes occurred that led to the ancestors of seeds plants (progymnosperms) gaining the characteristics that differentiate seeds in general (there is a lot of difference among seeds). These changes among others is what separated the ancestors of the Spermatopsida (Seed plants) from the ancestors of other groups including ferns, mosses, and hornwarts. Seed plants produce seeds (duh) which are basically preserved plant embryos and not just fertilized egg equivalents. Spores on the other hand are virtually only genetic information and have not developed farther than fertilization (at most). The extra structures in a seed allow this

    1. “the evolution from homospory to heterospory, meaning the production of specialized haploid female-like megaspores and male-like microspores”.
    Basically the transition from asexual spores that did not need fertilization to male and female spore like structures.

    2. “the evolution of the integuments”
    Integuments: Outer layers of the ovule (female egg cell equivalent) that becomes the seed coat after fertilization.

    3. “…and the evolution of pollen-receiving structures.”
    The parts the pollen plugs into.

    The oldest fossils that display all of these features date from the late Devonian era. Here is some discussion about it from the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology.
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/seedplants/seedplantsfr.html

    Note that the first known “modern” (merely meaning fits the loose definition of tree so can include today’s trees) tree was a progymnosperm and produced spores, not seeds. So the tree came before the seed. To figure out where first seeds came from scientists did two things;

    1. They compared fossil plants and looked for the appearance of characteristics of seeds among many fossils that the review references. The oldest fossil that has all the characteristics of seeds is “Elksinia polymorpha, the oldest known fossil seed plant, is a seed fern from the Late Devonian (Taylor & Taylor, 1993; Niklas, 1997; DiMichele et al., 2006)”. Prior to that there are structures that resemble seeds but are missing some structures. They mention “The oldest fossil pre-ovules are from the Middle Devonian (385 Ma, e.g. Runcaria; Gerrienne et al., 2004)”. This is where the range of 385-365 million years ago for the evolution of seeds comes from (370 is a safe general date).

    2. Compared the DNA and protein sequences of modern plants that do and do not produce seeds to get a proper tree of relatedness. This allows a more precise determination of what the most general seed structure are and is discussed in other parts of the paper (in all of its jargon-y glory).

    The paper covers a lot more than this, but you did ask specifically where seeds come from.

  173. on 18 May 2011 at 7:51 pm 173.Joshua said …

    @ Hotatiio 138

    “Good One. As you can see, no answer. Not even for a seed. LOL”

    No, it’s just that you guys are lazy and won’t look things up for yourselves. It’s easy to make a fast stupid comment that actually requires some work to answer.
    “They are so gullible. They actually believe science supports their fairytale but obviously it does not.”

    You only think that because you won’t look up the science, assume there is no answer when you won’t even look, and will probably reject any answer that you don’t like while giving no reasons at all.

  174. on 18 May 2011 at 8:14 pm 174.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 141
    “I never expected an answer where the first seed came from. But at a minimum they now realize their presuppositions are lacking.”

    You cannot complain about possible presuppositions of others when your own presuppositions clearly cripple your ability to determine what is real. You just believed that there would be no answer to where seeds came from without ever looking it up for yourself. Now you look like an idiot because even if you don’t believe it, there is a scientific explanation for where seeds came from.
    “There had to be that first seed that first tree. How did this simple cycle begin.”

    See my post about the paper. The first trees produced spores, not seeds. Also the cycle is not so simple as the paper shows.

    “Many questions and many theories and a Creator is real and distinct possibility. I would even say likely.”

    A creator is a competing explanation with unconvincing evidence. You need to present the evidence for a creator if you want to discuss it. Since I am on the side of evolution I do not mind presenting you with the evidence for parts of evolution that you ask for.

    “Mr Q, was is macroevolution? Abiogenesis? Doesn’t seem likely does it Mr Q?”

    Only because you have never actually looked at the evidence and understood it.

  175. on 18 May 2011 at 8:18 pm 175.Joshua said …

    @ Johnny P 154

    “C’mon, guys, seriously? Do you reeeally think you’re going to make even a dent in the Christian Bubble Of Denial?”

    They may be unreachable, but my tactics involve who ever might be watching us, and my own satisfaction. I can practice on these guys and make them look like fools to the ones that are on the fence, or actually have a respect for evidence. Now I have information on the evolution of seeds in my brain for the next person who wants to know.

  176. on 18 May 2011 at 8:22 pm 176.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 156

    “Get this through your thick skull – this is not the how did life start blog.”

    This comment is true. However the same logical problems, errors in thinking, and other issues that give them problems with the evolution issue also affect the god issue so I don’t mind the diversions. Fixing a logical problem in one area can help the other areas where is used.

  177. on 18 May 2011 at 11:07 pm 177.Lou said …

    176.Joshua said …

    “This comment is true. However the same logical problems, errors in thinking, and other issues that give them problems with the evolution issue also affect the god issue so I don’t mind the diversions. Fixing a logical problem in one area can help the other areas where is used.”

    If you think you can resolve “logical problems” with them, then with all due respect, I think you are very much overly optimistic.

    They have what I call the “religion gene.” It’s imply beyond their ability to accept that there is no god. Trying to convince them to understand the fallacy of their belief is simply impossible. It’s like you or I trying to solve an extremely complex problem like writing the “theory of everything” – it simply isn’t going to happen because we don’t have that ability, just as they don’t have the ability to understand the fallacy of their belief. As we all know, it’s a delusion. If they’ve read WWGHA, and they still don’t get it, then they never will.

    Furthermore, at its foundation, the rejection of god isn’t really a logic problem, is it? There’s simply no evidence for god.

    The other thing about these guys is that they have some psychological or emotional deficiency that explains their acting out here. That is, they are here posting irrational and illogical comments as part of a defense mechanism that’s a response to their perceived attack on their belief system. If they didn’t have the aforementioned deficiencies, then they could offer some rational comments, or at least admit that they have no evidence for god, or simply not post here and be at peace with their belief. Also, this blog offers them anonymity for their acting out, so they can be even more extreme with the absurdity of their comments.

  178. on 19 May 2011 at 1:13 am 178.Observer said …

    #171 Joshua- Damned good work! I did not know all that about seeds, just the rather vague “seeds originated in the Devonian and helped lead to the plant rich Carboniferous period. The best part of your write-up is that the seed-producing-tree-like-tree preceded the seed-producing tree; it is just as one would expect based on the ever increasingly well supported theory of evolution.

    Thank you for the hard work. I wrote a few tomey bits a couple years ago here. I did not do much for the xtian crowd.

    This website though is still my guilty pleasure.

  179. on 19 May 2011 at 12:53 pm 179.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 177

    You sound a bit annoyed. I hope you don’t think that I was being critical. I can totally understand not wanting to waste time on the guys here. I was just giving my opinion on off-topic discussion. Not everyone is as masochistic as me when it comes to internet arguments (my wife thinks I am crazy). I do it for the fence sitters and for the practice. The only reason I was able to look up the seed info like I did was because of practice. The more I deal with the idiocy the faster I can respond to it when I want to. Besides, this way I am ready for anything that I might encounter as a teacher (though my attitude is different).

  180. on 19 May 2011 at 12:57 pm 180.Joshua said …

    @ Observer 178

    Thanks!

    I thought it was really interesting. It’s one reason that I actually take up their challenges. My best skill is finding information as quickly and efficiently as possible and believe it or not, practicing on guys like these is good practice!

    Prediction: the most likely next thing they will do is move the goal posts.

  181. on 19 May 2011 at 1:32 pm 181.Anti-Theist said …

    #177

    They are here due to their own weakness. If they stop blindly arguing for the existence of god, they will think and ultimately lose the faith. These people are desperately clinging to a religion they are falling away from. To the xians; if you truly believed you would be doing god’s work now, instead of showcasing your faith to others.

  182. on 19 May 2011 at 2:42 pm 182.Lou said …

    179.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 177

    “You sound a bit annoyed. I hope you don’t think that I was being critical.”

    No, I didn’t think so at all. Thanks for your consideration.

  183. on 19 May 2011 at 3:42 pm 183.MrQ said …

    #141 Bur, Hor, Matt, Scott

    I never expected an answer where the first seed came from. But at a minimum they now realize their presuppositions are lacking.

    Hope you’ve been able to read some of the information here. Whoops….Another gap filled…Where does god fit in now?

    The xtians posting here are of the same ilk as those who, a few hundred years ago, looked at rainbows in awe of god’s powers, thought we are the centre of the universe, and had no problem condemning/executing anyone who disagreed.

  184. on 19 May 2011 at 5:33 pm 184.Lou said …

    180.Joshua said …

    “Prediction: the most likely next thing they will do is move the goal posts.”

    Yes, that is a common tactic. For example, evolution went from totally unacceptable to micro-evolution is acceptable, macro-evolution isn’t.

    Another common tactic is to create straw man, and then tear it down.

  185. on 19 May 2011 at 8:27 pm 185.Burebista said …

    No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.

    Guys I expect better. You claim there is no God, but you cannot answer the most simple of questions.

    Joshua, I do appreciate your hard work as Observer does. But your research does not provide any evidence for the fist seed. You suppose the first creature to crawl from the ooze planted the fist seed? Hard to say. Yes, we know there are very old seeds. See this link:

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/seedplants/seedplantsfr.html

    Have you had time to work on first cell and chemicals? You do seem a have a great deal of time on your hands so keep looking.

    I did get a nice belly laugh from Mr Q. Another gap filled! Yeah, right! HA HA.

  186. on 19 May 2011 at 11:28 pm 186.Hell Yeah said …

    Bur said,
    “No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.”

    Where is your answer for how your god was created, if you think he exists other than in imaginary minds? Also, how does the afterlife relate to the first of everything? You think that because everything had to start from something intelligent, that because a book of poetic fairy tales was written 2000 years ago that talks about both your god and the afterlife, that somehow they have to be real. We can all call the begining god, whatever it may be, but where does the afterlife fit into the creation of everything? Would you still worship a god if you knew the afterlife wasn’t real?

  187. on 20 May 2011 at 2:02 am 187.MrQ said …

    Bur,
    So where is your problem? Hmmm, seeds came about by natural mechanisms or supernatural forces?

    I gotta ask….how much intervention does a god have on evolution? Do you agree with Collins (www.biologos.org) that god does not get involved with evolution? What exactly is your claim?

  188. on 20 May 2011 at 2:14 am 188.DPK said …

    185.Burebista said …

    “No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.”

    Actually, you got answers to all of those things. You are just not bright enough to realize it. Tragic.

  189. on 20 May 2011 at 2:53 am 189.Lou said …

    185.Burebista said …

    “No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.”

    Irrelevant – no evidence from you for god.

    “Guys I expect better. You claim there is no God, but you cannot answer the most simple of questions.”

    Non sequitur – one has nothing to do with the other. That there’s absolutely no evidence for god has no bearing whatsoever on how a person answer ANY question, a simple or complex one.

    Joshua, his reply is another perfect example of “the same logical problems, errors in thinking” to which you referred. This guy is a lost cause. It’s simply beyond his ability to comprehend or demonstrate logical thought.

  190. on 20 May 2011 at 2:56 am 190.Lou said …

    188.DPK said …

    “Actually, you got answers to all of those things. You are just not bright enough to realize it. Tragic.”

    Even if he did, he’s never going to admit it. His comments here are part of his acting out defense mechanism for what he perceives as an attack on his belief system (delusion).

  191. on 20 May 2011 at 2:58 am 191.Lou said …

    187.MrQ said …

    “Bur,

    What exactly is your claim?”

    He has no claim. He is, as predicted, moving the goal posts. But only in a disoriented way.

  192. on 20 May 2011 at 2:29 pm 192.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 185

    “Joshua, I do appreciate your hard work as Observer does.”

    You are welcome. We demand evidence for your god so it is only fair that someone on our side be able to talk about evidence as well. However be aware that just because a particular person who accepts evolution cannot point to the evidence very readily, that does not mean there is no evidence. Some of this is very technical and most humans accept scientific consensus on a subject because we all can’t be experts.

    “No answer for fist seed, (still), the first chemicals (still) and for the first living cell.”

    To be fair you said that we could just talk about seeds. If you want to talk chemicals and cells later we can, but those areas are not as well developed as seeds. Hypotheses for early cells and pre-cell chemical evolution are still being formed. While there is a lot of data regarding the conditions on earth during the hadean epoch, chemistry is a very precise subject and there are a lot of experiments that need to be done to pin down what was possible and compare with what the geologic record shows and modern life. All we have at the moment are competing explanations. One thing is for sure though, the evidence indicates that chemistry led to life, not a creator.

    “But your research does not provide any evidence for the fist seed.”

    Let’s set aside the question of if evolution is true for a moment and just discuss what the theory says. Over time populations of organisms change bit by bit and after millions of years they look very different from what they were. But when you just look at the difference from one generation to another the change is very slight if it is even noticeable. The consequence of this is that you cannot pick out any one generation of pre-historic plants and just say “that’s the first seed”. There is a series of slight changes from plants bearing pre-seeds to plants with seeds. You really should check out the link that I posted above to the picture with the slight color changes. It really is a great example of what I am talking about. Here it is again;
    http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/xwpvw.jpg?w=450&h=206

    “Yes, we know there are very old seeds. See this link:…”

    Ummm… you know I did post this link above right? You have to admit that it makes you seem like you did not read what I posted when you ask me to look at a link that I already looked at.

    Also you can’t just dismiss that we have really old seeds because the comparisons of lots of really old seeds and really old pre-seeds is what makes the argument. That is why I said above that if you wanted to discuss the evidence we would have to agree on a specific subject (like say the comparison of pre-seed fossils to the oldest seed fossils). That way I can download or find the specific papers that show that evidence and then we can discuss if it convincing or not. Nothing replaces actually looking at the evidence. This is accepted science and people who trust experts in a field will not be convinced without pointing to why the experts are wrong.

    “Have you had time to work on first cell and chemicals? You do seem a have a great deal of time on your hands so keep looking.”

    I don’t actually, I enjoy learning new things. Over the years I have gotten very good at it so it does not take me as long.

    Also you said that we could just look at seeds so I want to focus there. If the evidence for the evolution of seeds is good we do not have to go on to cells and chemicals.

  193. on 20 May 2011 at 2:31 pm 193.MrQ said …

    Lou #191,
    The claim is and ALWAYS will be: god started it all/god is the original cause.

    For some of the hardcore xtians posting here – Even after they accept modern evolutionary theory (micro and macro) their belief in a god will remain unchanged. They perpetually distill their world view down to “the claim” that goddidit.

    It works like a flowchart – with god at the bottom. No matter what route you take, god is always the answer.

    No evidence/proof/logic is capable of swaying them. I, on the other hand, will come the the god conclusion once the evidence points me that way, After all, unlike Hor/Bur/Matt/et al, I am a fair and reasonable guy with an interest in honest research.

  194. on 20 May 2011 at 3:57 pm 194.Ben said …

    “No matter what route you take, god is always the answer.”

    Well yeah, God stared it all. This Dell Laptop always goes back to Dell because they designed and manufactured this laptop. The same goes for God and the universe. Now you are getting clued in.

    The first of anything is always a good test for the atheist. Science does not know and it is doubtful science can determine the first sell, chemicals, etc. Too much time has passed.

  195. on 20 May 2011 at 4:24 pm 195.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 194

    “The first of anything is always a good test for the atheist. Science does not know and it is doubtful science can determine the first sell, chemicals, etc. Too much time has passed.”

    “There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”
    – Albert Einstein, 1932.

    “I also lay aside all ideas of any new works or engines of ware, the invention of which long-ago reached its limit, and in which I see no hope for further improvement…”
    – Sextus Julius Frontinus, governor of Britania, 84 C.E.

    Never say never….

  196. on 20 May 2011 at 4:48 pm 196.MrQ said …

    Ben,

    This Dell Laptop always goes back to Dell because they designed and manufactured this laptop.

    Can you let Hor know that my HD motorcycle goes back to HD? LOL-I didn’t find it washed up on a beach.

    Science does not know and it is doubtful science can determine the first sell, chemicals, etc.

    And once we figure it out the goal posts shift. Don’t worry, I understand. What would it take for you change your mind? Answers to these questions? I doubt it…the flowchart just gets modified; god must remain at the bottom.

  197. on 20 May 2011 at 4:54 pm 197.Lou said …

    194.Ben said …

    “Well yeah, God stared it all.”

    But YOU never answer the question – who “stared” god?

    “This Dell Laptop always goes back to Dell because they designed and manufactured this laptop. The same goes for God and the universe. Now you are getting clued in.”

    Says the clueless Ben.

    “The first of anything is always a good test for the atheist. Science does not know and it is doubtful science can determine the first sell, chemicals, etc.”

    Are you on “chemicals?” Your comment is nonsensical rambling. Exactly how is “the first of anything always a good test for the atheist?” It’s not only “doubtful,” but absolutely shown to be true by your idiotic comments that you don’t know a fraction of what’s been shown to be true by science.

    “Too much time has passed.”

    Not since your last stupid comment.

  198. on 20 May 2011 at 5:24 pm 198.Joshua said …

    “But YOU never answer the question – who “stared” god?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mexican_Staring_Frog_of_Southern_Sri_Lanka

    God, is, dead…

  199. on 20 May 2011 at 6:34 pm 199.Lou said …

    We can only imagine and wonder how much would be known if xianity/religion had never existed. The world would no doubt be a much nicer, safer, more knowledgeable, and technologically advanced place.

  200. on 20 May 2011 at 6:45 pm 200.Ben said …

    You boys get ugly when presented with questions you cannot answer. You hold up the mantle of the new angry atheist well.

    I like the Einstein quote. He didn’t believe something in the here now was attainable. Let me know when science can prove from where the fist cell came from. Science is my life calling, love to see it, but I doubt it. There is only one.

    I do know who brought about the first cell. How is a mystery but not who. Without the Xians, science wouldn’t nearly be where it is today.

    Continue with you ugly ranting.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply