Feed on Posts or Comments 18 December 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism &Rationals &Science Thomas on 16 Apr 2012 12:22 am

The Truth about Evolution

The Truth about Evolution can be seen in this short, simple article:

I don’t believe in evolution

Here is the best part:

There is not a single observation or experiment that invalidates evolution. No fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata. No human footprints next to dinosaur footprints. No genetic data showing the synchronized bottleneck of Noah’s ark in all of the animal species. No radioactive dating results or anything else disproving the Cambrian explosion.

There simply is nothing. Or, like Richard Dawkins put it, “Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun”.

The only people who don’t accept evolution are Theists. They are willing to ignore all of the evidence in order to cling to their imaginary god.

Why?

132 Responses to “The Truth about Evolution”

  1. on 16 Apr 2012 at 4:52 pm 1.BrianE said …

    This is why

  2. on 16 Apr 2012 at 4:52 pm 2.BrianE said …

    Damn non-html comments: http://www.dererumnatura.us/archives/images/petarded.png

  3. on 16 Apr 2012 at 6:01 pm 3.DPK said …

    We need a “Like” button.

  4. on 16 Apr 2012 at 7:54 pm 4.Suh said …

    Following the same logic:

    There is not a single observation or experiment that invalidates God.

    The only people who don’t accept Theism are Atheists.

    This is the ridiculous thread to date. Evolution must prove itself to be correct.

    Where is the evidence for speciation?

    Where is the evidence for creation of the 1st cell?

    No contradictory evidence is not proof.

  5. on 16 Apr 2012 at 8:21 pm 5.DPK said …

    Suh, once again your ignorance is showing.
    Start here:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evidence+for+speciation&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=On-MT6fYE-nh0QGy1tXOCQ&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA

    Get back to us when you have a clue about what you are talking about. Until then, no one cares.

  6. on 16 Apr 2012 at 8:25 pm 6.Anonymous said …

    Suh, it takes a special kind of stupid to deny evolution.

    Congratulations on winning the gold medal.

  7. on 16 Apr 2012 at 9:20 pm 7.Lou (DFW) said …

    4.Suh said …

    “This is the ridiculous thread to date. Evolution must prove itself to be correct.”

    That is your most stupid comment to date. Reality is NOT based upon proof. Reality exists independent of proof.

  8. on 16 Apr 2012 at 9:48 pm 8.Suh said …

    Hi DPK

    This is from your links.

    “THE taxonomy of grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus and “subspecies”) is at present poorly understood; the number of species recognized by currently accepted authorities ranges from one1 to four2. As part of a broad taxonomic study we collected the blood sera of 839 animals from more than forty localities throughout the range of the grey kangaroos and measured antigenic and electro-phoretic variations in the serum proteins. We hoped to find differences, characteristic of particular groups of animals, which would correlate with geographical or taxonomic groups, and which might be useful in determining the degree of mixing and interbreeding between such groups. The details of these studies will be published elsewhere; here we wish to summarize the results as they relate to the problem of speciation in grey kangaroos.”

    Lets cut to the chase, I don’t want to be hateful or intolerant, but why not just type out a few proofs? You believe the Kangaroo evolved from________?

    Your proofs are_________?

    You knock this out for me and we can live in love and harmony from here on out.

  9. on 16 Apr 2012 at 9:57 pm 9.Anonymous said …

    Suh, how about your provide some evidence for sky daddy? Theists always run away when asked for that. Got something to change your delusion into facts?

    Thought not.

  10. on 16 Apr 2012 at 10:19 pm 10.alex said …

    8.Suh said …

    more bullshit diversions. so you don’t believe in evolution, so fucking twhat? does this validate your god? so you don’t believe in thor, so fucking twhat?
    does this validate your god?

    where is your evidence? why don’t you do what your god says? stone an adulterer and see what happens. blow up shit so you can get the virgens? riding on a magical horse? whoa, more believable than evolution…

  11. on 16 Apr 2012 at 10:31 pm 11.Lou (DFW) said …

    8.Suh said …

    “Lets cut to the chase, I don’t want to be hateful or intolerant…”

    Except that you are. You’re intolerant to any criticism of your religion and belief in god and creationism.

    “…but why not just type out a few proofs?”

    Because this isn’t an evolution blog. Discussion about the reality of evolution by the blog-master or anybody else is irrelevant to the purpose of this blog except to refute incorrect claims by theists about evolution. If you are serious about discussing evolution, then go to an evolution forum.

    “You believe the Kangaroo evolved from________?”

    Irrelevant where kangaroos came from. Where did god come from?

  12. on 16 Apr 2012 at 10:32 pm 12.40 year Atheist said …

    To deny evolution is unconscionable: evolution is fact and is the backbone of biology which is the foundation of science and all truth in the universe. Maybe all the universes. Maybe it’s even more true than that. It certainly is in Dawkins’ universe.

    Comparing the “fact” of evolution to the fact of the size of the moon being smaller than the earth, Dawkins clearly goes out of his way to obscure the difference between measurable facts vs. non-measured inferences, experimental data vs. conjecture. Or perhaps he truly doesn’t know the difference, being a life-long evolutionary proponent who has never been forced to be subject to actual experimental proofs of his proclaimed scientific “facts”. He does admit that all the evidence for evolution is inferential, and he makes the standard claim that mountains of such conjecture make it fact.

    But that is not true. It fails the basic tests of logic. Let’s run some tests:

    First, Dawkins seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact. First Principle #1 (identity or tautology) states that “If it is true, then it is true” . This is not the same as “If I declare it true, then it is true” . False tautology: Logic failure #1.

    Next let’s try First Principle #2, which states that “a proposition cannot be both true and false”. Now, without experimental verification can we know if a principle is true or false, fact or fallacy? The Atheist / Materialist / Empiricist viewpoint is that evidence of a material nature is required in order to believe a thing. The evidence offered for evolution is inference: conjecture. This is not physical, material evidence, it is non-physical, non-material; moreover it smacks of being religious, a belief without empirical, experimental, substantive, material evidence. Dinosaurs? DNA? Do inferred relationships prove descent? Or are they conjecture? Clearly the latter.

    The inference / speculation issue is one that Dawkins cannot dodge and cannot win, straight on. It violates the concept that science is the search for “what is” by inserting extrapolative speculation as a substitute for experimental data. It contradicts the concept of science itself. It fails the Non-Contradiction Principle hands down. Logic failure #2.

    The third First Principle states that a “thing cannot be partly true and partly false”. Dawkins violates this by stating that evolution is true, when evolution is hardly even defined properly at this late date. We don’t need to understand mechanisms to know that it happened – is his response (elsewhere). Thus evolution is commonly compared to gravity, which we know exists without knowing the mechanism. But this is a false comparison; we can experimentally measure gravity but we cannot produce any experiments that even produce evolution much less measure it. So evolution falls back again onto “mountains of inference”, ie. conjecture, as its source of truth. Is evolution completely true? No one really knows other than accepting the religious stance that sufficient conjecture proves the case. So the third First Principle is an unknown and possibly unknowable source of validation or invalidation for evolution.

    The only case made by Dawkins is the assertion of the sufficiency of inference and conjecture. He ignores the probabilistic issues surrounding evolution, especially the issues of first life: an existence philosophy limited to material causes requires a material cause for first life, an occurrence attributed to magical, fortuitous, undefined replicators in Dawkins’ earlier works. Also ignored is the problem of too-rapid evolution in the Cambrian period, a problem requiring special convolutions in speculatory inferences.

    Dawkins’ real case is contained in his adjectives. He claims straight out that evolution is believed by “reputable” scientists, and “unbiased” readers of his book. If you disagree, you are designated a dreaded “historydenier” status, or the new pejorative, “40Percenter”. These Ad Hominem Abusives, hurled from an agenda-driven position of logical weakness, are a specialty of the Atheist Left, of which Dawkins is a prime example. If you cannot convince with logic, then first ridicule and second go for legal restrictions on non-congruent thought, such as removing children from homes of “historydeniers”, who Dawkins has previously declared are child abusers.

    Dawkins does not use logic to seal his argument. He uses the religious credentials of “sufficient inference” coupled with ridicule and defamation of dissent and dissentors. He is a religious zealot selling a religious program which claims exclusive, absolute truth.

    Dawkins has not yet slipped the reigns of rationality to the point of professing eugenic solutions for “historydeniers”. However, we should watch for that in the future, because his grip on logic and rational thought is virtually non-extant. Or maybe that idea is toward the back of his new book.

    Richard Writes A Book:

    Logic, principles of rational thought, discernment, critical thinking, the First Principles – all these are not taught or mentioned on Dawkins’ website, at least the last time I searched his “oasis of clear thinking”. They are presumed present due to the Materialism espoused there. But a perusal of Dawkins’ writings reveals not a familiarity with logic, but a rabid defense of a cherished agenda along with associated rationalizations in support of it.

    The excerpt from Dawkins’ book, “The Greatest Show On Earth” seems to indicate yet another step in the same direction. After inflating his own intellectual image with references to ancient Greeks, Romans and the Latin language, Dawkins gets to the meat of his pique: there are deniers out there: that’s just wrong! And the flow continues in that direction. Dawkins doesn’t pretend to use logic; he uses pejoratives, and that reveals the incredible rational weakness of his position. Despite this flaw he undoubtedly will sell a boatload of books, and the ridicule contained within will no doubt be satisfactory to convince a few others of his keen grip on ontology.

    What is truly a shame about modern schools is not whether they do or do not teach that evolution is truth. What is a shame is that they do not teach the principles of rational discernment. And you can’t get that from Dawkins, either.

  13. on 16 Apr 2012 at 11:05 pm 13.Lou (DFW) said …

    12.40 year Atheist said …

    “He does admit that all the evidence for evolution is inferential, and he makes the standard claim that mountains of such conjecture make it fact.”

    Just for grins, show where Dawkins admitted that.

    “First, Dawkins seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact.”

    “Seems to think?” Just for grins, show where Dawkins said that. Otherwise, you’re again talking out of your ass.

    However, what you said about Dawkins also describes faith and religion – “god did it.” Entire institutions are built upon that simple idea.

  14. on 16 Apr 2012 at 11:40 pm 14.ReligionIsStupid said …

    First, Dawkins 40Y-idiot seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact. First Principle #1 (identity or tautology) states that “If it is true, then it is true” . This is not the same as “If I declare it true, then it is true” . False tautology: Logic failure #1.

    Someone just spilled a large carton of hypocrisy. Cleanup needed on aisle one.

  15. on 17 Apr 2012 at 12:07 am 15.DPK said …

    Suh, you still don’t get it huh?
    Here ya go. I’m not a biologist. I have no idea what kangaroos evolved from.
    Do you? What is your claim on the origin of kangaroos, and what is your proof?

  16. on 17 Apr 2012 at 1:25 am 16.Anonymous said …

    #12, 40Y

    the problem of too-rapid evolution in the Cambrian period, a problem requiring special convolutions in speculatory inferences.

    This is hilarious. You admit that science is correct in defining the Cambrian period and in documenting the Cambrian explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion) – you admit that all of fossils exist and are accurately dated. Then you put on your “I know more than all the scientists” hat to declare that a “problem requiring special convolutions” exists. Even more hilarious: The only way for these “special convolutions” to have any meaning for you is if you have accepted all other evolutionary rates to be true.

    Then there is this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F

    “The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the “bang” of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation (“diversification”) may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals’ history.[4] However, it does seem that some innovations linked to the explosion — such as resistant armour — only evolved once in the animal lineage; this makes a lengthy Precambrian animal lineage harder to defend.[93] Further, the conventional view that all the phyla arose in the Cambrian is flawed; while the phyla may have diversified in this time period, representatives of the crown-groups of many phyla do not appear until much later in the Phanerozoic.[94] Further, the mineralized phyla that form the basis of the fossil record may not be representative of other phyla, since most mineralized phyla originated in a benthic setting.

    The fossil record is consistent with a Cambrian Explosion that was limited to the benthos, with pelagic phyla evolving much later.[94]
    There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism “designs” or “ways of life” – rose sharply in the early Cambrian.[5]

    However, recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing.[95] In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation.[5]“

  17. on 17 Apr 2012 at 3:16 am 17.41YA said …

    4.Suh said …

    “This is the ridiculous thread to date. Evolution must prove itself to be correct.”

    Kind of ironic how, via us, it kind of did.

  18. on 17 Apr 2012 at 4:33 am 18.Severin said …

    4 Suh
    “There is not a single observation or experiment that invalidates God.”

    And there is not a single evidence that god exists.

  19. on 17 Apr 2012 at 11:48 am 19.Lou (DFW) said …

    4.Suh said …

    “Following the same logic:

    There is not a single observation or experiment that invalidates God.”

    If actual logic is used, perhaps it can be done. God must be defined. Define God and we’ll proceed from there.

  20. on 17 Apr 2012 at 12:35 pm 20.DPK said …

    Suh won’t define god. None of them will. I’ve been asking here forever for a definition. They won’t do it.
    Suh asked for evidence of speciation. I gave her a link to literally dozens, if not hundreds of academic papers providing evidence of speciation, and what does she focus on? Kangaroos!
    As if some perceived missing data in the lineage of kangaroos therefore means god must have made them via magic because there can be no other logical explanation.
    That is the mindset you are debating with.
    They will not define their god because that would leave them open to having to explain contradictions between his definition and reality. That is too dangerous for them to think about, so they will ignore the question and instead demand evidence for kangaroos.

  21. on 17 Apr 2012 at 1:00 pm 21.ReligionIsStupid said …

    DPK, it really is intellectual dishonesty and cowardice of the most obvious manner.

  22. on 17 Apr 2012 at 3:45 pm 22.Lou (DFW) said …

    20.DPK said …

    “They will not define their god because that would leave them open to having to explain contradictions between his definition and reality. That is too dangerous for them to think about, so they will ignore the question and instead demand evidence for kangaroos.”

    I know, that’s why I asked it.

  23. on 17 Apr 2012 at 5:44 pm 23.Dez said …

    “perhaps he truly doesn’t know the difference, being a life-long evolutionary proponent who has never been forced to be subject to actual experimental proofs of his proclaimed scientific “facts”.

    40YA

    To teach evolution it is more important to be a great artist than a biologist. The charts of the evolutionary trees are beautiful, problem is only 5% of the data is backed up with proof. Take the article above.

    No human footprints next to dinosaur footprints

    No radioactive dating results or anything else disproving the Cambrian explosion.

    No fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata.

    These pass as proof of evolution. The Holy Grail of pseudo-science must not be denied. The price of denial is ostracization.

  24. on 17 Apr 2012 at 6:03 pm 24.DPK said …

    Dez, easy enough to rectify. Explain your idea for the creation and diversity of life and show us the evidence you have to back it up.

    Then publish a paper and collect your Nobel Prize.

    This should be awesome. Can’t wait.

  25. on 17 Apr 2012 at 7:47 pm 25.MrQ said …

    OK Dez (#23)
    Let’s contrast your goddidit viewpoint with reality. Start with the simple stuff that we can agree on. Here we go again….or not!

    Kick of festivities with: Can you, for the record, state the age of our planet Earth? And the universe?

  26. on 17 Apr 2012 at 7:49 pm 26.41YA said …

    Since you theists want a diversion anyway, let’s play with one.

    You all seem hellbent on disproving evolution. Why? What is your problem with it? What do you achieve by disproving it? Why are you so hung up on it?

  27. on 17 Apr 2012 at 7:54 pm 27.Godless Monkey said …

    Amazing that xtians will believe in talking snakes and donkeys, a woman turning into salt, canes turning into snakes, man walking on water, every species on the planet fitting into an ark, angels almost being raped by villagers until some teen girls are offered up for the raping, demons being cast into pigs, a man’s life devastated so god could prove a point to satan, and the whole six-day creation myth that is ass-backward retarded based on science, and a plethora of other nonsense — and yet claim atheists are “delusional” and somehow religious (??? WTF) because we’re intelligent enough to know the myths of the holy books and cultures around the world are just myths. So afraid they are of losing their Adam that they wear blinders when it comes to any real natural answers to things they attribute to god. Astounding!

  28. on 17 Apr 2012 at 8:21 pm 28.DPK said …

    “Amazing that xtians will believe in talking snakes and donkeys…”

    But that still doesn’t change the fact that you can’t explain where kangaroos came from, does it?

    I can just picture me arriving at the Pearly Gates. God says,[booming thunderous voice] “Why did you not believe in me?”
    I reply, meekly, “Well, you really didn’t give me any reason to, sir.”
    And God says, “I gave you fucking kangaroos! What more did you need, asshole?”

    Yup… that’s my fate.

  29. on 17 Apr 2012 at 8:31 pm 29.Godless Monkey said …

    Following the logic of the torah, one can only assume that perhaps God created kangaroos at the whole Tower of Babel lollapalooza for the future Australians to take down under with them ’cause he knew that in the future Australia would need a cute, funky animal to use as their country’s logo? Just a thought.

  30. on 17 Apr 2012 at 8:35 pm 30.Godless Monkey said …

    Oops, “mascot” not “logo.” No need to give the haters fuel for the fire :)

  31. on 17 Apr 2012 at 8:41 pm 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    23.Dez said …

    “To teach evolution it is more important to be a great artist than a biologist.”

    To teach religion it is more important to be a pathological liar than a “theologist” – wait what’s the difference? Oh yes, then there’s that bit about being celibate and a child molester. PRAISE GOD!

  32. on 17 Apr 2012 at 9:10 pm 32.Godless Monkey said …

    And let’s not forget that bit about how the xtian god knew us before we were born and HAD A PLAN for us and knew our fates, yet still let those be born, the homosexuals, atheists, muslims, scientologists, The Sex Pistols, etc., that he will delight in sending to hell. What an awesome dude.

  33. on 17 Apr 2012 at 9:16 pm 33.ReligionIsStupid said …

    On the question of evidence, it’s revealing to see both the double standards and the extent to which those that want to believe in the supernatural will go to insulate their beliefs from examination.

    Take our Stan (please). Having defined his version of the first cause to be something that can’t be tested (yet he claims exists – sigh) he goes on to demonstrate that what he expects from the rational world is not what he’s prepared to do to prove his own position.

    I will accept evidence that has done the following within the constraints of empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable scientific methodology:

    a) Explore every cubic inch, every cubic angstrom of space, during every femtosecond of time – historically, current, and future, for a deity which is not material in any sense, with instrumentation data on the lack of discovery
    at every point onthe universe;

    AND,

    b) Explore everything before the Big Bang using the best material technology to provide instrumental data that there is no such no-material existence.

    It would be funny if he wasn’t serious.

  34. on 17 Apr 2012 at 9:20 pm 34.ReligionIsStupid said …

    The xtain god invented Kangaroos because he had a plan for Rolf Harris. Quite a sense of humor that Yahweh.

  35. on 17 Apr 2012 at 9:42 pm 35.ReligionIsStupid said …

    41YA – “You all seem hellbent on disproving evolution. Why? What is your problem with it? What do you achieve by disproving it? Why are you so hung up on it?”

    Seeing as no-one wants to go first, I’ll try it on.

    My assumption is that evolution is a no-win situation for a fundamentalist.

    If you take evolution as it is then that wipes out Adam and Eve and man’s special place in their god’s plan.

    Without A&E then you don’t get original sin.

    Without original sin then the story of J-boy’s “sacrifice” in the bible goes bye-bye and that’s the raison d’être for xtianity.

    They also lose the narcissistic pleasure of believing that the whole universe (a flat earth, stars fixed in the firmament and windows to let in the rain) was created just for them.

    Thus the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, even for a xtian.

  36. on 17 Apr 2012 at 9:55 pm 36.Lou (DFW) said …

    32.ReligionIsStupid said …

    “Take our Stan (please). Having defined his version of the first cause to be something that can’t be tested (yet he claims exists – sigh) he goes on to demonstrate that what he expects from the rational world is not what he’s prepared to do to prove his own position.”

    By his standards, Santa Claus must exist!

  37. on 17 Apr 2012 at 9:57 pm 37.41YA said …

    That’s what I think too. I just wondered what they think they’re gaining by it, since it doesn’t succeed in forwarding their position even an inch. That alone is proof enough that their entire enterprise is a sham. The whole thing is built upon the effort of discrediting reality to preserve ancient guesses about “stars” that moved through the sky and other natural occurrences (whose scientific explanations they do not hesitate to accept).

    I can’t wait to see what they try to do with Krauss once they understand him.

    After that, when they catch up, the recent findings on free will are going to cause an even bigger insurmountable problem for them.

    Too bad (for them, I guess) they’re mired in fighting against science done a century and a half ago and thus missing the parts that are really blowing their fairy tale apart at its very core.

  38. on 17 Apr 2012 at 10:12 pm 38.Godless Monkey said …

    RIS, you nailed it right on the head! W/out Adam they’ve got nothing and it scares their fairy tale believing minds to the core. What, no afterlife with ma, pa and Billy Graham? And don’t forget the delight they are anticipating in watching all non-xtians burn in hell. I think they’re looking forward to that more than anything else. Sadists.

  39. on 17 Apr 2012 at 11:43 pm 39.Suh said …

    “You all seem hellbent on disproving evolution. Why?”

    Nope, not at all. I am more than willing to accept it when there is some proof. This is science and should meet minimum scientific methods, right?

    The funny thing is you guys cannot prove it yet you believe based on assumptions, inference and drawings. So go ahead, list out you top five proofs for macroevolution.

  40. on 17 Apr 2012 at 11:46 pm 40.Suh said …

    40year

    A very informative post. Another funny thing is these guys obviously didn’t understand a word. You maybe wasting your time.

    Do you teach logic 40year?

  41. on 18 Apr 2012 at 12:09 am 41.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Suh, why are you so afraid to answer the questions that you ask of others? For example:

    “What is your claim on the origin of kangaroos, and what is your proof?”

    Also, we are still waiting for you to define god and then provide proof for it.

    What are you waiting for? You demand proof of things that are not relevant but refuse to provide proof of things that are. Apparently you are unaware of the difference between a biologist and and an atheist. No wonder more complicated subjects phase you.

  42. on 18 Apr 2012 at 12:23 am 42.alex said …

    “I am more than willing to accept it(evolution) when there is some proof”…

    yet, you accept blindly, your god, without an iota of proof. you are a moron and an idiot.

    just because things are dubious, that doesn’t mean your explanation is correct.

    when somebody says, chocolate milk comes from brown cows, do you jump up and holla?

    there’s no proof! therefore god create chocolate milk!

  43. on 18 Apr 2012 at 12:35 am 43.Suh said …

    Simple RIS. My comments in #4 was in response to the original thread article. My comments, my follow up questions are in response to the thread. I have yet to have anyone answer a question or disprove my points.

    You on the other hand are a diversion. You and your friends attempt to hijack every thread to theology. Your obsession with God is noted. You are scared, I understand.

    However, If you care to stay on topic take a shot at the questions. Don’t worry about your qualifications or lack of education.

  44. on 18 Apr 2012 at 12:53 am 44.Anonymous said …

    So, in other words, Suh has no proof of the existence of her imaginary god. She knows she makes herself look stupid when she posts so she decides to play games.

    Think we care about your taunts? You’re delusional, remember? You don’t even know what an atheist is. Who would care about being insulted by someone who believes in talking snakes, sky daddy and, get this, “higher truths”.

    You’ve confirmed that you have nothing and that you are nothing.

  45. on 18 Apr 2012 at 1:27 am 45.alex said …

    “I have yet to have anyone answer a question or disprove my points.”

    …I (anybody else?) don’t give 2 shits about your points. You’re trolling an atheist site, spewing all your nonsense and you’re asking questions?

    read the webpage title. forget about evolution, barrack obama, etc. whywontgodhealamputees?

    because, your god is thin, powerless, impotent, and ultimately nonexistent.

  46. on 18 Apr 2012 at 1:42 am 46.MegaByte said …

    “You and your friends attempt to hijack every thread to theology.”

    Suh it comes down to lacking. They lack belief, original thought, thinking for themselves or common sense. 40 Year has explained it well.

    They believe speciation to be fact because they have been told it is true, not because they have put 2 & 2 together. They do not comprehend basic logic or principles of rational thought.

    Then we come to the hijacking. Notice the relentless parroting “prove God exists, awwkkkk” regardless of the thread. This goes back to their incapacity to understand first principles or critical thinking.

    You don’t expect a monkey to type out a sonnet or an atheist to understand logic or first principles.

  47. on 18 Apr 2012 at 1:49 am 47.41YA said …

    You ask for 5, here’s 29.
    Now stop lying about yourself.
    http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  48. on 18 Apr 2012 at 2:00 am 48.42YA said …

    29 Evidences exposed

    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

  49. on 18 Apr 2012 at 2:12 am 49.alex said …

    “You don’t expect a monkey to type out a sonnet or an atheist to understand logic or first principles.”

    …you think you’re clever? take a look at the ratio of atheism/education level.

    this is your M.O., smug, self righteousness in the usage of “monkey”, “awwk”. I’m just waiting for the “..negroes ain’t got no sense. you cayn’t teach em reedin and ritin..”

    i’m an atheist and my in-law is a muslim. are we both going to christian hell? or maybe, megabyte and i are both going to muslim hell? or maybe to a thousand other unnamed “hells”. damn that rascal pascal.

    back to the parroting, awwwk, where the goddamn…

  50. on 18 Apr 2012 at 2:17 am 50.Lou (DFW) said …

    42.Suh said …

    “Simple RIS.”

    Just as I thought – a Hor sock-puppet.

  51. on 18 Apr 2012 at 2:19 am 51.Lou (DFW) said …

    45.MegaByte said …

    “Suh it comes down to lacking.”

    And MegaByte “comes down” to being another Hor sock-puppet.

    Isn’t it obvious, even when ignoring the content of the comment?

  52. on 18 Apr 2012 at 2:22 am 52.alex said …

    “You don’t expect a monkey to type out a sonnet or an atheist to understand logic or first principles.”

    you don’t expect a monkey to molest a youngster and then run over to the High Simian Priest to ask for redemption so that he can do it over and over again?

  53. on 18 Apr 2012 at 2:23 am 53.Lou (DFW) said …

    45.MegaByte said …

    “This goes back to their incapacity to understand first principles or critical thinking.”

    We WOULD understand “first principles” if you ever provided one, but you NEVER, EVER do.

  54. on 18 Apr 2012 at 2:31 am 54.Lou (DFW) said …

    45.MegaByte said …

    “You don’t expect…an atheist to understand logic or first principles.”

    This comment is absolutely absurd, an intentional misrepresentation of truth, a lie.

    Hor, you are still a pathological liar who has no other way to defend your delusion.

  55. on 18 Apr 2012 at 4:45 am 55.Godless Monkey said …

    @45 Mega said, “They lack…original thought, thinking for themselves or common sense.” That describes just about every xtian I have ever known. And this sentence coming from a theist. Irony at its best.

  56. on 18 Apr 2012 at 5:10 am 56.Severin said …

    48 Alex
    “i’m an atheist and my in-law is a muslim. are we both going to christian hell? or maybe, megabyte and i are both going to muslim hell? or maybe to a thousand other unnamed “hells”. damn that rascal pascal.“

    I was said many times by Christian theists that, YES, Muslims, atheists, and all other non-Christians WILL go to (Christian) hell, because they have free will, and use their free will to accept other gods and to deny the right one.

    So, all generations of American Indians starting from first appearance of Christianity, to the moment of its arriving to Americas, will go to hell. Some 500 million people or so?
    I mean, they could have used their free will to make the right choice, if only god did not forget to inform them about Christianity when Christianity finally appeared. He waited 1500 years to inform “his children” about himself!
    He forgot to inform Aborigines, and many and many other nations for thousands of years!
    Eskimos? Tunguska people? Hawaii? Indonesia? China? Japan? …

    YOU have a free will AND choice, and you deserve hell, but what about those poor souls? They will go to hell because of god’s negligence (irresponsibility).
    It wasn’t his first time to make tremendous bullshits!
    He already killed millions, including innocent children, because he fucked up something before and was not satisfied with his own job (big flood).
    What is 500 million souls for god?

  57. on 18 Apr 2012 at 5:20 am 57.Severin said …

    Suh,

    I am still waiting someone to tell me which god answers prayers of Muslims and Jews.
    Just like Christians, they pray and their prayers get answered (in some cases), and they are thankful to god for answered prayers.

    Now, please, tel me:
    Does god answer their prayers and which god is it that answers their prayers.

    Or, maybe they all lie about answered prayers of theirs? Maybe THEIR “answered prayer” are only coincidences, and has nothing to do with god,and answered prayers of Christians are god’s deeds?

    Please, please, enlighten me!

  58. on 18 Apr 2012 at 5:24 am 58.Godless Monkey said …

    So true, Sev, God just loves to kill. So much for that first commandment.

  59. on 18 Apr 2012 at 12:22 pm 59.Lou (DFW) said …

    55.Severin said …

    “I mean, they could have used their free will to make the right choice, if only god did not forget to inform them about Christianity when Christianity finally appeared. He waited 1500 years to inform “his children” about himself!
    He forgot to inform Aborigines, and many and many other nations for thousands of years!
    Eskimos? Tunguska people? Hawaii? Indonesia? China? Japan? …”

    Yes, as I posted here many times, everybody is born ATHEIST.

    Theism is born of two things – ignorance and control. Ignorance of how nature works, and control of the (ignorant) masses by organized religion such as the catholic church.

  60. on 18 Apr 2012 at 12:50 pm 60.Doug Fo said …

    Looks like Suh and some others are up to relying on “underwear Gnome Theology” again:

    Step One: Find something science is a little shakey or unclear on, or has an insufficient explanation of

    Step Two:

    Step Three: Declare evolution is wrong and the God of Christendom exists!

  61. on 18 Apr 2012 at 3:25 pm 61.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Sev, here’s a discussion for you regarding who answers a Muslim’s prayers.

    What’s fascinating is to see each side quote their own scripture at each other, which each side denies because it doesn’t come from their holy book.

    We also see claims that the others miracles didn’t really happen and the the other side must prove that their miracles were real.

    We see claims of a loving god and attempts to prove the opposite of the other.

    And of course, there are claims the others are delusional.

    This really is the bubble of delusion that has been referenced on WWGHA. No wonder no theist will answer your question.

    http://www.nairaland.com/93366/christians-does-god-answer-muslims

  62. on 18 Apr 2012 at 3:56 pm 62.41YA said …

    Hmm..

    If devout Muslims go to Christian hell, and
    if devout Christians go to Muslim hell,

    then

    Christian heaven is Muslim hell, and
    Muslim heaven is Christian hell.

    Seems legit.

  63. on 18 Apr 2012 at 4:00 pm 63.DPK said …

    “Christian heaven is Muslim hell, and
    Muslim heaven is Christian hell.”

    Yeah, but what about kangaroos?

  64. on 18 Apr 2012 at 4:13 pm 64.41YA said …

    Apparently Jesus made them as a barometer.
    That’s what this science that I’ll accept says.
    http://phys.org/news200126874.html

  65. on 18 Apr 2012 at 4:15 pm 65.41YA said …

    Then there’s this
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8754000/8754412.stm

    …and for the creatards:
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo

  66. on 18 Apr 2012 at 4:29 pm 66.YouBothCantProveAnything said …

    What I don’t understand is how anyone who believes in evolution actually laughs at someone who is a creationist.

    The garbage taught in school as science today is no different as garbage taught in schools centuries ago based in biblical science.

    Atheists are no different than those who believe in GOD. You belong to a religion because your beliefs are also based on nothing but “fairy tales”.

    To believe in “God”, you have to have faith.

    To believe in evolution, you have to be alive for millions of years to apply scientific method.

    To those who keep claiming that evolution has been proven. well, guess what? it hasn’t.

    As a matter of FACT, the basic beliefs of evolution goes against what we know as science.

    Want couple of very simple examples?

    -Science says that it is not possible create living life forms from the non-living. But evolution says otherwise.

    -Mathematics shows that there is 1 in 10^340,000,000 chance that a living cell will self replicate randomly or by chance or accidentally or whatever you wanna call it. I hate to use the word impossible, but according to the laws of probability.. it is impossible here on Earth.

    -It is a scientific fact that a cell CANNOT function correctly, will decay, or will even die if all of its parts were not operable at the same time. There is no room for mutations that will somehow lead to a simple life form evolving into a more complex living organism. Adaptation occurs over time but there has never been any proof of an highly complex creature ever evolving.

    In reality, there is actually more evidence that sides with intelligent design than it does with evolution. Maybe it is Jesus, Allah, aliens, spaghetti monster, or maybe Dr. Evil…

    Evolution exists because there is no other choice for those who hate organized religion(can’t really blame them for hating organized religion).

  67. on 18 Apr 2012 at 4:30 pm 67.Anonymous said …

    60.ReligionIsStupid said …

    “What’s fascinating is to see each side quote their own scripture at each other, which each side denies because it doesn’t come from their holy book.”

    Every theist is an atheist – to a point. They disbelieve in the hundreds of other gods, and only believe in theirs. All they must do is let go of that one last god for which there’s no more evidence than the hundreds they don’t believe. For the vast majority, they ONLY believe in their god because of when and where they were born, a simple coincidence. It has absolutely nothing to do with their god being real

  68. on 18 Apr 2012 at 5:25 pm 68.DPK said …

    65.YouBothCantProveAnything..

    Obviously you don’t have a very accurate understanding of either science or evolution, but that aside… let me ask you a specific question,
    Does it take “faith” to not believe in Santa Claus?

  69. on 18 Apr 2012 at 5:41 pm 69.Anonymous said …

    65.YouBothCantProveAnything (as well as Suh, Patrick, 40, MegaByte, Dez et al):

    So where do you propose that all of the new species in the fossil record came from? Example: all species of mammals extant today appeared in the fossil record at different times over the last 65 million years. All dinosaur species appeared at different times in the fossil record during millions of years prior to that 65-million-year-old boundary, but none after. Etc Etc Etc. Where did all of these new species come from?

  70. on 18 Apr 2012 at 6:02 pm 70.Suh said …

    You Both,

    I agree with you to a point. At least you stayed on point. However it is the atheist who claim for anything to be true science must be used. Evolution beliefs prove they violate their own standards. They even continue to claim evolution is fact!

    Now, I will leave it with that. These atheist can’t wait to change the subject to avoid their own hypocrisy.

  71. on 18 Apr 2012 at 6:14 pm 71.Doug Fo said …

    “What I don’t understand is how anyone who believes in evolution actually laughs at someone who is a creationist.”

    If you don’t understand why, then you don’t understand the basis of all science.

    “The garbage taught in school as science today is no different as garbage taught in schools centuries ago based in biblical science.”

    Other than the fact that this science taught in school today, “garbage” as you call it, actually works. You know, has real results from things as simple as knowing you should wash your hands to minimize contagions, to as complicated as space stations.

    YOu poistion decrying the functions of the principle of science while typeing it on a COMPUTER, using ELECTRICITY, over the INTERNET, is actually quite laughable, are you simply too stupid to uunderstand why.

  72. on 18 Apr 2012 at 6:25 pm 72.Lou (DFW) said …

    on 18 Apr 2012 at 6:02 pm 69.Suh said …

    “However it is the atheist who claim for anything to be true science must be used. Evolution beliefs prove they violate their own standards.”

    Show us.

    “They even continue to claim evolution is fact!”

    Evolution is a fact.

    Gravity is fact. Explain to us how it works, or do you also deny gravity?

  73. on 18 Apr 2012 at 6:30 pm 73.Lou (DFW) said …

    65.YouBothCantProveAnything said …

    “What I don’t understand is how anyone who believes in evolution actually laughs at someone who is a creationist.”

    Who cares what you don’t understand?

    “The garbage taught in school as science today is no different as garbage taught in schools centuries ago based in biblical science.”

    For example?

    “Atheists are no different than those who believe in GOD. You belong to a religion because your beliefs are also based on nothing but “fairy tales”.

    OK, we can stop here. You are either an idiot or simply trying to provoke a response. By definition, and atheist CANNOT be religious. Being an atheist isn’t even a hobby. Just because your religion is simply an irrational, crazy belief doesn’t mean that you can classify those who disagree with you as religious nuts, too.

    They rest of what you wrote falls under that category – religious craziness and lies, because that’s all you have.

  74. on 18 Apr 2012 at 7:38 pm 74.Godless Monkey said …

    Quick question: Has any atheist here ever gone to a theist, ID or creationist blog trying to convince the loonies that they’re delusional in that belief/s? I’d venture a guess to say no. Curious how reality threatens them so much that they come here hoping and praying that we’ll all travel with them to the land of Oz and acknowledge their man behind the curtain thus validating their psychosis. Even if evolution one day is proved to be complete horseshit (doubtful), that still doesn’t prove that any of the gods in this planet’s man-made religions are true.

  75. on 18 Apr 2012 at 7:44 pm 75.Doug Fo said …

    I haven’t beause it would be rude. When they post to atheist sites, well, they fired the first shot so it is just fine to tell them how incredibly wrong they are.

  76. on 18 Apr 2012 at 7:51 pm 76.41YA said …

    I’m overwhelmingly tickled about how the vast majority of the theists’ posts on this thread actually substantiate the claim in the blog post they’re commenting on: that they deny evidence for evolution but accept a lack of evidence for their God.

    Pwnt by your own desperation, kiddos.

  77. on 18 Apr 2012 at 8:27 pm 77.Godless Monkey said …

    Ah, yes, I agree, 41YA. And it seems that most are masochists and enjoy the derision and the ass smacking that comes their way…huum, wonder if we’re used in their mental porn???

  78. on 18 Apr 2012 at 9:19 pm 78.ReligionIsStupid said …

    “Even if evolution one day is proved to be complete horseshit (doubtful), that still doesn’t prove that any of the gods in this planet’s man-made religions are true.”

    This is where the theists arguments go off the rails. They’ll argue that you can’t demonstrate how Kangaroos evolved, for example. When you turn round and say “OK, so let’s assume you are right. Now how does that support your position on the existence of gods?” they either resort to silence or turn round and start another round of “you can’t prove whatever” arguments all over again.

    It’s as if their script only allows for them to argue that someone else is wrong. When you take that away, they are faced with the uncomfortable silence of not actually having anything at all to back up their preposterous beliefs.

  79. on 18 Apr 2012 at 9:20 pm 79.Lou (DFW) said …

    “76.Godless Monkey said …

    “Ah, yes, I agree, 41YA. And it seems that most are masochists and enjoy the derision and the ass smacking that comes their way…huum, wonder if we’re used in their mental porn???”

    Perform a search here for “Broadway in the basement”

    You will find similar rantings by our resident sock-puppeteer, Horatio.

  80. on 18 Apr 2012 at 9:44 pm 80.alex said …

    I’ma just an autistic aborigine from brooklyn, ny. by default i is an atheist. i don’t believe in evolution or high speed wifi. i’ma ritin this on a 1200 baud modem in somebody’s basement.

    i really want to believe in god, but where is the proof?

  81. on 18 Apr 2012 at 10:24 pm 81.Lou (DFW) said …

    SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY: THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION IN AMERICA

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6honsb

    PDF in the lower right corner of that page.

  82. on 18 Apr 2012 at 10:25 pm 82.Lou (DFW) said …

    P.S. forgot this:

    ABSTRACT

    American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the U.S., which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the U.S. suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Since creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the U.S. is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change.

  83. on 18 Apr 2012 at 10:43 pm 83.Godless Monkey said …

    Alex, of course there’s no proof, come on, but if you’re willing to suspend your common sense and intelligence and disregard the natural world around you you will find god, halleluja! Amen and namaste to you, brother :)

  84. on 18 Apr 2012 at 11:27 pm 84.Anonymous said …

    One more time:

    65.YouBothCantProveAnything (as well as Suh, Patrick, 40, MegaByte, Dez et al):

    So where do you propose that all of the new species in the fossil record came from? Example: all species of mammals extant today appeared in the fossil record at different times over the last 65 million years. All dinosaur species appeared at different times in the fossil record during millions of years prior to that 65-million-year-old boundary, but none after. Etc Etc Etc. Where did all of these new species come from?

  85. on 18 Apr 2012 at 11:36 pm 85.alex said …

    “Where did all of these new species come from?”

    okay, okay, i give up. I don’t know.

    God did it! It’s written in the bible. No further proof is required! case closed!

    for all MY christian brothers/sisters ONLY, press (alt)+(f4) for a miracle.

  86. on 19 Apr 2012 at 1:53 am 86.42YA said …

    “So where do you propose that all of the new species in the fossil record came from?”

    Oh, so if science cannot prove something we just make up a theory and call it “fact”? Spontaneous generation was a fact too, now it is abiogenesis. Evolution has changed so much Darwin would not even support it. Its not even close to being proven. Where did the first life form originate, what was it and then what evolved from it?

    I understand atheist much better now. They are so desperate to eliminate God they resort to deceit and self-delusion. If the theory falls, so does their delusion.

  87. on 19 Apr 2012 at 1:59 am 87.Godless Monkey said …

    Lou, @78 you mention “Broadway in the Basement.” Curious, am I! Can you direct me there as I’m on smartphone and site is limited, and search shows nada :(

  88. on 19 Apr 2012 at 2:05 am 88.Godless Monkey said …

    I understand Theists so much better now. They are so desperate to eliminate Reality they resort to deceit and self-delusion. If the Mythology falls, so does their delusion.

    Back at ya, 42YA :) Oh, what sweet irony.

  89. on 19 Apr 2012 at 2:15 am 89.Lou (DFW) said …

    86.Godless Monkey said …

    “Lou, @78 you mention “Broadway in the Basement.” Curious, am I! Can you direct me there as I’m on smartphone and site is limited, and search shows nada :(”

    Goto yahoo.com

    click on More above search box

    click on Advanced Search

    only search in this domain/site

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog the

    exact phrase

    broadway in the basement

    click Yahoo! Search button

  90. on 19 Apr 2012 at 2:30 am 90.Lou (DFW) said …

    85.42YA said …

    “Oh, so if science cannot prove something we just make up a theory and call it “fact”? Spontaneous generation was a fact too, now it is abiogenesis.”

    You are greatly confused or an outright liar. Evolution is a fact. It’s what happened AFTER the first life appeared. Ambiogenesis, strictly speaking, is the STUDY of how life formed from non-living matter. It’s not a theory or fact. It’s a branch of science.

    “I understand atheist much better now. They are so desperate to eliminate God they resort to deceit and self-delusion.”

    Another lie. Atheists don’t have to “eliminate god” any more than we must “eliminate” Santa Claus. We don’t have to because there’s no evidence for god – none, nada, zilch. And we don’t have to “resort” to anything. All we need is evidence of god. If there was evidence for god, then you would present it here instead of lie about atheists. If you present any such evidence, then it’s possible that some atheists might “resort to deceit and self-delusion” to refute it, but don’t hold your breath.

    “If the theory falls, so does their delusion.”

    What theory, evolution? There is no “theory of evolution,” and there never has been.

  91. on 19 Apr 2012 at 2:51 am 91.41YA said …

    I wonder if you get a science-denying merit badge at Jesus Camp or something. You’d think these people would be all about the science that shows the most promise in curing all of the other diseases their ignorance of science brings upon them, but no.

    Makes this all the better:
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iNx_rVuZ_sY/TBfWWJA-RqI/AAAAAAAAACM/BVg7Uf3N3JU/s1600/the_week_10916_27.jpg

  92. on 19 Apr 2012 at 4:50 am 92.Anonymous said …

    http://i.imgur.com/FdioJ.jpg

  93. on 19 Apr 2012 at 6:42 am 93.Severin said …

    69 Suh
    “They even continue to claim evolution is fact!”

    O.K., for the sake of debate let’s try to accept that god did it all: universe, earth, life on it and specifically man. No evolution.
    I might accept it all if someone tells me WHEN and HOW. The theories I accepted till today gave me explanations that I took as logical and true, or at least plausible (not impossible, could have occurred according to physics, chemistry, math, logic)).
    Now if someone wants me to accept something different from what I used to, I kindly except more than just naked claim.
    So, Suh, please give us historical frame for events: when and how god created universe
    when and how god created earth
    when and how god created life on the earth
    when and how god created human beings

    Was it the way as described in Genesis, or you have some other time and event frame?
    Please share it with me.

  94. on 19 Apr 2012 at 12:34 pm 94.Anonymous said …

    Anyone?

    65.YouBothCantProveAnything (as well as Suh, Patrick, 40, MegaByte, Dez et al):

    So where do you propose that all of the new species in the fossil record came from? Example: all species of mammals extant today appeared in the fossil record at different times over the last 65 million years. All dinosaur species appeared at different times in the fossil record during millions of years prior to that 65-million-year-old boundary, but none after. Etc Etc Etc. Where did all of these new species come from?

  95. on 19 Apr 2012 at 1:10 pm 95.DPK said …

    Silly… God created all the species at his will, and then he created the fossil record and all the other mountains of evidence for evolution as a way to test our faith. He wants to see if you would be fooled. So now, you failed the test and will be spending eternity in torment. That Yahweh, such a kidder.
    He also created the universe six thousand years ago, and even though he created other galaxies several billion light years away, which would make them invisible because the light from them could not reach us in 6 thousand years, so he also created all the photons, already in transit… Just to fuck with us.
    You have to admit, he has a sense of humor.

  96. on 19 Apr 2012 at 2:09 pm 96.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Now, now, DPK. To be fair to Yahweh, if the story is true, he didn’t just create visible light in transit he created an entire EM spectrum and he even arranged that red-shift thing that really, really, messes with your head when you try to reconcile his work with a universe that was only created six to ten thousand years ago.

    As for a sense of humor. That thing whereby he makes it look like he doesn’t exist, arranges for hundreds, maybe thousands, of other gods to be spoken about, and makes sure that statistically there’s no difference between prayers to him, other gods, a dead dog, or whatever, that’s a classic!

    But his best work has to be the one about how he wants you to ignore all his japes and jests, believe in him despite all his efforts to make himself look non-existent, and then if you don’t, he’ll show you his love by condemning you to eternal torment.

    Man, that’s one sick mother-fucker for certain.

  97. on 19 Apr 2012 at 4:07 pm 97.MrQ said …

    Just a note of thanks for all the theists and their viewpoints on this website.
    Y’all seem so evangelical, so rabid, so christian, and oh so American. You never fail to put a smile on my face and brighten my day. Keep up the splendid work. Oh, and keep it to yourselves, in the food ol’ USA, that is.

  98. on 19 Apr 2012 at 5:25 pm 98.offroute27 said …

    Just a note of thanks for all the theists and their viewpoints on this website.
    Y’all seem so evangelical, so rabid, so christian, and oh so American. You never fail to put a smile on my face and brighten my day. Keep up the splendid work. Oh, and keep it to yourselves, in the good ol’ USA, that is.

  99. on 19 Apr 2012 at 5:27 pm 99.offroute27 said …

    Changed my id from MrQ to offroute27 because everything I write is NOW MODERATED. WTF WWGHA?

  100. on 19 Apr 2012 at 7:24 pm 100.42YA said …

    “because everything I write is NOW MODERATED. WTF WWGHA?”

    And you need an explanation? Learn civility RIS/Mr Q/Offroute

    Geezz!

  101. on 19 Apr 2012 at 7:45 pm 101.Lou (DFW) said …

    99.offroute27 said …

    “Changed my id from MrQ to offroute27 because everything I write is NOW MODERATED. WTF WWGHA?”

    What makes you think it was moderated?

    Did you see that “waiting for moderation” message?

  102. on 19 Apr 2012 at 7:51 pm 102.offroute27 said …

    Lou (DFW)
    Yes, everything I write (likely this included)gets the “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” message.
    WTF? MrQ was such a bad ass? And what’s with offroute27 being constantly moderated? Is everyone/anyone else getting the same?

  103. on 19 Apr 2012 at 8:42 pm 103.Doug Fo said …

    Evidence is defined as:

    ev·i·dence/?ev?d?ns/
    Noun:
    The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

    _________________________________________________
    Evolution:
    -The Fossil Record
    -Observed cases of Speciation
    -Extrapolation from Breeding
    -Genetic Mapping
    -Germ resistance
    -Gentic Reversion tendencies when breeds mix in feral situations

    _________________________________________________
    Bible God:
    -Heresay

  104. on 20 Apr 2012 at 2:17 am 104.Lou (DFW) said …

    13.Lou (DFW) said …

    12.40 year LIAR said …

    “He does admit that all the evidence for evolution is inferential, and he makes the standard claim that mountains of such conjecture make it fact.”

    Just for grins, show where Dawkins admitted that.

    STILL WAITING FOR ANSWER, LIAR

    “First, Dawkins seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact.”

    “Seems to think?” Just for grins, show where Dawkins said that. Otherwise, you’re again talking out of your ass.

    STILL WAITING FOR ANSWER, LIAR

  105. on 20 Apr 2012 at 2:34 am 105.41YA said …

    The fun part with the 40-Year LIAR is that you can take just about any sentence from his garbled rants on here, put them into Google, find the blog post he copied and pasted from that he wrote back in something like 2009, and looks at how the comments there disabuse him of his pathetic attempts as well.

    As for that 42YA thing, it was clever when I did it. It’s just sad and stupid when you do it Hor. I’m not sure how many times you’ve been told this on here, but here’s another: Stop trying to sound clever because you’re not.

  106. on 27 Apr 2012 at 9:08 pm 106.Levi said …

    All of you are far wiser and smarter than us all[.]

    He He He, you believe that too eh….idiot[s]

  107. on 29 Apr 2012 at 4:55 am 107.John said …

    Evolution is not on the solid ground you would like to think it is. Which is true: punctuated equilibrium or gradualism? Where is the mechanism for evolution? Let’s discuss “science” and it’s theories of life piggy-backing off crystals or transpermia. What about all the faked transitions that are promoted on the front page of NG and then recanted months later in small print. Oh and feather evolution… have you read this stuff? The explanations are just silly.

    You guys sound like a bunch of trekkies trying to describe life’s origins wearing your Spock ears using your plastic tricorders. I’m sure it’s fun, but at some point its time to put down your toy ships and come back to reality.

    I think your lead preacher, Mr. Dawkins is just as bad. He says higher learning will eliminate the superstition of God, but he clearly says in the PBS series “The Atheist Tapes” that he was converted to humanism at age 16.

    Not to mention the website this material came from is embarrassing, http://www.godisimaginary.com/. This was written by someone with an extreme lack of understanding about the Christian faith and attacking the bad science of young earth christians. It feels like I am watching an old Warner Bros cartoon where you play the role of Elmer Fudd, trying to outsmart God… What arrogance. Stupid arrogance.

    Not enough? Let’s talk the Big Bang. If you don’t understand the implications of the big bang, then you are extremely delusional. But wait, let’s put our Spock ears back on and talk about multiverses.

    Your refusal to bow a knee to God is due to a tantrum because God doesn’t dance when you ask Him to. It’s really that easy.

    Let’s face it. This is simple rebellion. If Jesus did show up in your house and proved His divinity beyond belief and followed up by saying he won’t heal people the way you want Him to, tell you homosexuality is wrong, abortion is murder, and follow it up with He wants you to do His Will which means recanting all this blabber, you wouldn’t. Why? It’s a heart issue. Check out the “intellectual masterpiece of the “God Delusion”. If you can feel Dawkins kicking and screaming in rebellion of God, you probably just skimmed the book looking for pictures.

    Finding God is easy. You have to want to know Him. Not to try and trap Him in a test tube, because you want your health restored, you want money, or you want God to cure a disease. You seek God because you want to know Him above all. Do this and you will find Him.

    The atheistic evolutionist is confused. He talks of being moral but doesn’t define moral according to the natural outcomes of evolution. The atheist’s hypocrisy allows for science to make “adjustments” based on findings, but doesn’t give theists the opportunity of using science to understand God’s Word better. Entropy trumps the silly notion of Evolution.

    in summary, let’s use one of your champions Bill Maher. At the end of “Religulous”, he takes some jabs at faith by explaining it’s better to have evidence over faith. What this guy doesn’t get is his view requires a massive amount of faith. The Big Bang, irreducible complexity, life’s origins, the KT and PT Extinctions and their impact on Evolution, etc. etc. etc.

    Silly Evolutionist. Grow up. Read Hugh Ross not Ken Ham.

  108. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:19 am 108.Anonymous said …

    John the Moron,

    leaving aside the clear fact that you’re a delusional fool, your evidence for the existence of your imaginary god would be what?

  109. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:03 pm 109.John said …

    108. Anonymous…

    Let’s start with probability of information needing a causal agent.

    A man that sticks his head in the sand doesn’t make the world disappear. He only reveals where his thinking is derived.

    Also what is your flavor of macro-evolution?

  110. on 29 Apr 2012 at 9:10 pm 110.Anne Onymous said …

    No; you’re wrong. God is most certainly real. If I told you my story, you’d tell me I was lying – and you’d be certain in your conviction. You cannot know and will not know God as your bias leads you by the nose into the blind abyss. Your motive in proving God doesn’t exist is born of ignorance and fear. You don’t know that, nor do you have the capability to understand. This in itself will anger you. You are most vulnerable as you know nothing as to why you exist. Live the paradox and proclaim your nothing. The proof that God exists is beyond your comprehension. Your pea brains are your limiting devices. Lead your pathetic lives in your scientific search of that which will only elude you. We poke fun at idiots too. And that would be you. Are we angry yet as we clamber to reply? Your point? You have none. What a pathetic lot.

  111. on 29 Apr 2012 at 10:16 pm 111.John said …

    110

    I would like to point out that science and theology are not at odds. The interpretation of evidence is the issue. Atheism and science are not the same thing and advanced education doesn’t destroy faith.

    Behe and others demonstrate that.

    Even Dawkins shows it’s just a worldview by announcing in the Atheist Tapes that he became an atheist at 16? Hardly advanced education influenced him initially. I encourage you to learn about the fossil record, major extinctions, the cell, life’s origins, the big bang, and evolution to strengthen your faith in the Supreme Causal Agent: God.

    Most people in here are just Googling stuff, catching the highlights, and following the atheist evangelists for the big “ah ha!” moment.

  112. on 29 Apr 2012 at 11:25 pm 112.Godless Monkey said …

    I agree that atheism and science are not the same thing.

    I disagree that theology and science are not at odds. In fact your citing Behe, in essence, versus Dawkins, is quite telling in your confirmation bias that you have accused atheists of displaying.

    I cannot speak for others, but my subsequent lack of belief in man-made gods and religion had its origins not in evolution but in the critical reading of the bible. It did not take a degree in any of the sciences to question, even as a youth, the validity of the biblical science that I had already learned by the 6th grade to be ridiculous.

    And thus began for me a journey into discerning reality from mythology. I am still on this journey, have much more to learn, no doubt, but at least it is an honest journey not tainted by making history, science, archaeology, etc., fit into the bible, usually apologetically, to explain the contradictions.

    And I am sure you were merely being sarcastic, right, in saying that most here only glean their knowledge via Google? Are you a seer who just “knows” this? Does this non-knowledge of a person’s education make you feel intellectually superior? Like it or not, xtians are more apt to get their “aha” moments from apologetic authors via whatever method than are atheists from a googled website.

  113. on 01 May 2012 at 5:44 pm 113.John said …

    Godless… good insight… thanks for the reply… I think you are one of the most honest here. I enjoy reading your replies.

    Okay, where to begin? Let’s start with science vs. theism…I actually like reading and listening to Dawkins… he bass ackwards and a crappy philosopher, but he is fun. Behe presents an, excuse the word, intelligent question?

    Do you believe in co-option for an answer to Behe’s assessment? If so, what convinced you? If not, what convinced you to your beliefs? I am amazed by the cell. Looks like it flies in the face of evolutionary processes.

    I agree, there are a lot of man-made gods, but it’s a mistake to discount all belief in god if the evidence points otherwise. I believe information is a good argument (in part) of God. You think everything made itself thought mutations and natural selection. I have a hard time with that and a lot of atheists do too, hence the multiverse to give you more time, variables, etc. Again backing a solution to fix Darwinism. No one believes in spontaneous generation…

    I study mythology as well. I admit there is some interesting stuff. I don’t think it discounts all gods, especially one. I admit this discussion would be bigger than a BLOG.

    In terms of googling things, it is a bit of tongue and cheek. It seem these sites are going for their aha statement rather than honestly learning, discussing and growing. I don’t respect parrots. I like thinkers. For example, I respect your worldview, but I don’t agree with it. I think yours requires faith, and many of the components of other religions. I think you are blind to your faith as you claim others are blind to theirs.

    Anyway, I am finishing up at Tuesdays for lunch and heading out. Keep it coming.

  114. on 01 May 2012 at 6:30 pm 114.Anonymous said …

    You think everything made itself thought mutations and natural selection. I have a hard time with that

    What mechanism do you propose instead, and what evidence do you have for that mechanism?

    Also from above:

    So where do you propose that all of the new species in the fossil record came from? Example: all species of mammals extant today appeared in the fossil record at different times over the last 65 million years. All dinosaur species appeared at different times in the fossil record during millions of years prior to that 65-million-year-old boundary, but none after. Etc Etc Etc. Where did all of these new species come from?

  115. on 01 May 2012 at 7:44 pm 115.Lou(DFW) said …

    113.John said …

    “Anyway, I am finishing up at Tuesdays for lunch and heading out.”

    Aha, that explains it.

  116. on 01 May 2012 at 7:52 pm 116.Lou(DFW) said …

    111.John said …

    “I would like to point out that science and theology are not at odds.”

    Well that settles that. We can now take that discussion off the table.

    “I respect your worldview, but I don’t agree with it. I think yours requires faith, and many of the components of other religions. I think you are blind to your faith as you claim others are blind to theirs.”

    As has been discussed numerous times, you can’t call rejection of your “worldview” a “worldview” anymore than you can call rejection of Santa Claus a “worldview.” As I wrote before, you ARE on the same boat as Kirk Cameron. No matter how much you attempt to disguise it by trying to be clever and lying about atheists won’t change that.

    And no matter how hard you try, we atheists will NEVER, EVER be in the same boat with you until you actually stop writing about atheists and provide evidence for your imaginary god.

  117. on 02 May 2012 at 4:58 pm 117.Anonymous said …

    Anyone? These are such simple questions.

    Theists: Where do you propose that all of the new species in the fossil record came from? Example: all species of mammals extant today appeared in the fossil record at different times over the last 65 million years. All dinosaur species appeared at different times in the fossil record during millions of years prior to that 65-million-year-old boundary, but none after. Etc Etc Etc. Where did all of these new species come from?

  118. on 02 May 2012 at 5:04 pm 118.Asher said …

    Anony,

    Why don’t u tell us?

  119. on 02 May 2012 at 5:50 pm 119.Doug Fo said …

    “Anne” Please seperate your response from:
    ___________________________________________________

    No; you wrong. Ugabuga most certainly real. If I told you my story, you’d tell I lying – and you’d be certain your conviction. You cannot know and will not know Ugaguba as your bias leads you by e nose into blind abyss. Your motive in proving Ugabuga not exist is born ignorance and fear. You don’t know, nor you have capability understand. This itself will anger you. You most vulnerable as you know nothing as to why you exist. Live paradox and proclaim your nothing. Proof Ugabuga exists beyond you comprehension. Your pea brains your limiting devices. Lead your pathetic lives your scientific search of which will only elude you. We poke fun at idiots too. And that would be you. Are we angry yet as we clamber to reply? Your point? You have none. What pathetic lot.

    ___________________________________________________

  120. on 02 May 2012 at 8:03 pm 120.Godless Monkey said …

    John,

    So you know where I’m coming from on this, admittedly I am no evolutionary biologist, cosmologist or any kind of “ologist” but I, as stated earlier, am on a journey of discovery which has taken me away from theoloy. That is a failure of theology. And I did not reject my religion over night; it was definitely a process.

    At a young age when I first began to doubt the validity of such it was not evolution that fueled that doubt, and it still isn’t a major contributor to my lack of belief. That major factor was after having read the entire bible for the first time. It made no sense, other than perhaps as mythology? Then came mythology, my first baby step into atheism…and then I found Joseph Campbell :)

    But in this journey I study as much as I can to inform myself of reality because what I seek is the truth, and I know I’ve yet to learn so much more, but I follow/ed the evidence as honestly as one can, even when that meant finally ceding to the fact that there was no afterlife…hard leap to make there.

    Now Behe, I first learned of him while reading a book, whose name I can’t remember (it was sometime ago) about a school board’s fight to teach ID in schools. In short, it was defeated in part by Behe’s lack of evidence, among other things.

    And as link leads to link, that set me next on a journey of trying to understand evolution more fully, then cosmology more fully, and I’m still on that journey, but from all I’ve learned thus far both have proven themselves in nature, albeit there are still unanswered questions, typically of origin, but that doesn’t mean the answers aren’t there or that god did it.

    The god of the bible is incomprehensible for a multitude of reasons. That was my point A. You feel that all the evidence points to god. I feel otherwise.

    As to your statement on faith, one doesn’t need faith when one has evidence.

    Sorry this was so long :)

  121. on 06 May 2012 at 2:15 am 121.DarcBird said …

    I don’t know if this has been asked already… but where are the Kangaroos and Koalas and all the other wildlife that is purely indigenous to Australia in Noah’s Ark? Talking of which, where did he keep the whales? (It does say in the “good” book that EVERYTHING was killed by the flood, including everything in the sea!!!!) Sorry about being off-topic etc… :)

  122. on 06 May 2012 at 3:28 am 122.Allen said …

    Darc

    I hate to break this to an atheist Bible scholar, however, the account of Noah does not say all the sea creatures were killed. The vast majority of scholars agree, of which i am not.

    Sorry dude, more study needed. Maybe stay on topic.

    BTW macroevolution cannot account for the platypus. How did it evolve dude?? Sorry to be off topic.

  123. on 06 May 2012 at 4:11 am 123.Prime said …

    First it was kangaroos can’t be accounted for, now it’s the platypus. Seriously?

    Um, who cares if the sea creatures died or not? It’d be a nice trick if they didn’t since that whole fresh water/salt water thing poses a real problem for them, but the whole story is idiotic. Only fools believe it these days.

  124. on 06 May 2012 at 5:42 am 124.Lou(DFW) said …

    122.Allen said …

    “BTW macroevolution cannot account for the platypus. How did it evolve dude?? Sorry to be off topic.”

    Speaking of people like you, Allen, my girlfriend and I and another couple were sitting on a restaurant patio having lunch and drinks today when the discussion turned to religion. I expressed my disbelief in god. During the conversation, which at no time ever included evolution, a man at the table next to us interrupted our conversation and went on an anti-evolution rant to us. When he finished I asked him name. I then addressed him by his name and told that nobody at this table was speaking to him or was discussing evolution, and that we didn’t appreciate him interrupting our conversation, and to shut-up. The woman with him grabbed him in apparent embarrassment, and they got up to leave. He, of course, had to have the last word, so when he left he told he loved me and would pray for me. A few minutes later the couple appeared in their car on the street next to us with the car facing at us as if he was going to run over us. He then backed-up, turned, and drove away.

    “BTW macroevolution cannot account for the platypus. How did it evolve dude??”

    That’s like saying gravity can’t account airplanes. Biologists fully understand the evolution of the platypus. Regardless, your comment is irrelevant to the flood fairy tale.

    If platypuses were on the Ark, then they would have to swim or walk to Australia from Mt. Ararat. There’s no evidence that happened, nor are they equipped to make any such journey. You conveniently ignore all the scientific evidence in order to support your delusion.

    “Sorry to be off topic.”

    No apology necessary. We understand and expect that theists like you can’t stay on topic. Like the man I encountered today, and like all the other theists here, you always divert to irrelevant tangents whenever you fear that your delusion is threatened.

    So let’s get on topic – why do you ignore all of the evidence in order to cling to your imaginary god?

  125. on 25 Dec 2012 at 9:09 pm 125.Wouldubelieveit said …

    Because no one understands Mark 4, Matthew 13, and Luke 8 I’m just a anybody and I’m a follower of Jesus so to me was given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. And I know what God’s will is. and it is based on his word. He watches over his word to PREFORM it not his will. But he wants both in your life. His word and his will. Just because you know his word does not mean you understand his will. Beloved I wish above all things you to prosper and be in health even as you soul prosper? Does the word grow in you are do you have parts of the bible you just don’t believe in. Satan stole it from you, birds ate it, people stomped on, the sun scorched it, worries of the world made it useless, unbelief choked it out, what else? Then you have those people who only believe about 30% of it. Then you got the 60% one foot in the heaven and one foot in the world. Then you have the 100% hard to find, those kind, signs and wonders follow.

  126. on 25 Dec 2012 at 9:22 pm 126.Wouldubelieveit said …

    So if you really want to get to know Jesus. Jesus said LISTEN TO THIS MARK 4 MATTHEW 13, LUKE 8 He who has ear to hear let him hear. He tells you what he is doing how the how he is doing it. I will tell you again He will tell what he is doing and how he is doing it. Satan knows when you see this you will stop him in his tracks.

  127. on 25 Dec 2012 at 9:34 pm 127.alex said …

    “Because no one understands Mark 4, Matthew 13, and Luke 8..”

    that’s right moron. especially prehistoric men. i guess they all went to hell. get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

  128. on 25 Dec 2012 at 10:12 pm 128.Severin said …

    26 W…
    “So if you really want to get to know Jesus.”

    We really don’t want to get to know jesus.
    Go away and look for someone who does.

  129. on 26 Dec 2012 at 4:10 am 129.Anonymous said …

    Why would anyone want to get to know a myth? That’s insane.

    W, you are in the wrong place and, as you are reviving a thread of 7 months ago, in the wrong time too.

    Merry Winter Solstice.

  130. on 09 Feb 2013 at 5:14 pm 130.s0l0m0n said …

    Evolution is a ((((HOAX)))).
    It’s crystal clear. Everyone should deny it.

    Provide fossil proofs of the gradual transition from ape to men that must have existed in abundance if evolution was true.

  131. on 09 Feb 2013 at 7:19 pm 131.alex said …

    Ape to men? You’re the perfect example why I use foul language. A dumb mooslim bitch lying motherfucker you are.

    Woman from a rib? Am I making up this shit? A flying ass magical horse, s0l?who da hoax?

  132. on 09 Feb 2013 at 7:46 pm 132.DPK said …

    Alex… just ignore him. He is a troll and an idiot. You cannot argue with an idiot, they drag the conversation down to their level of stupidity and then beat you with experience. No one here, not even the theists, take him seriously or given any credence to anything he writes (((trolls)))).

    ka ka ka Solomon… you’re over!

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply