The obligatory “British atheist ad campaign really taking off” post

posted at 9:45 pm on January 6, 2009 by Allahpundit

The good news: They exceeded their fundraising target by 2,700 percent. The bad news: They totally wussed out by tossing “probably” in the slogan. The worst news: They couldn’t think of anything better to do with £135,000 than buy dopey ads on the side of a bus.

I’m losing faith. Or non-faith, rather.

Organisers of the four-week campaign said they had included the word “probably” because they did not want to be dogmatic in the way that so many religious leaders are…

In London they will coincide with a poster campaign on the London Underground with statements such as Emily Dickinson’s: “That it will never come again is what makes life so sweet,” and Albert Einstein’s: “I do not beieve in a personal God and have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”

Many Christian groups and churches welcomed the campaign for putting God into such a prominent position in the public eye.

Paul Woolley, director of the religious think tank Director of Theos, said: “We think that the campaign is a great way to get people thinking about God. The posters will encourage people to consider the most important question we will ever face in our lives…

Mike Elms, a Fellow of The Marketing Society and former Chief Executive of ad agency Ogilvy and Mather, said that the campaign could play a role in the revival of Christianity.

I’ll have to remember that excuse the next time commenters start whining about atheism posts on the site. Here’s a clip of the campaign’s organizer from the Beeb last month; consider P.J. O’Rourke’s theory vindicated once again. Exit question: Bigger waste of time and mental energy — this, or the dreaded atheist symbol?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

What everyone is missing in the walking on water question is this. It is not possible. He did it anyway. That’s why it’s considered a miracle. That is the whole point of it being important to Christians. If you Atheists really want to attack faith, quit trying to prove all the miracles Jesus performed to be impossible and instead try to prove them possible. If they are possible they were not miracles.

MikeA on January 7, 2009 at 8:35 PM

RightWinged
Gene Splicer… sorry bud, but you’re completely missing the point too, and as I told the other one, there’s not really any point in repeating myself if you didn’t get it already. You’re either being deliberately dishonest or your blind faith in evolution is causing you to miss the point. Oh well, I can’t help you.

The “other one”? Not even possessing enough manners or etiquette to bother to look up the nic I see. Another dismissal or belittling at least.

In other words, you cannot rationally defend your point of view or your opinion other than to use the simplistic dismissals I cited.

And again, the same simplistic dismissals are used by those who to try to denounce vaccines, modern medicine, date of the Earth, etc.

You’re either being deliberately dishonest or your blind faith in evolution is causing you to miss the point.

So you claim that unless I agree with you I am being dishonest. Nice tidy and simply castigation and dismissal. Well, at least you are true to form so far.

Oh well, I can’t help you.

And I cannot help the fact that you are unable to rationally and with material fact debate your points of view or claims.

I cannot help that you lump disparate theories together due to the commonality of your dislike alone.

Simplistic dismissals are just that.

If you have something of a tangible and verifiable evidence that, for example, disproves the results of the human/great ape chromosome pair comparison I mentioned before, that would be enough to disprove evolution.

Of course, if you prefer to believe is some grand, world-wide scientific conspiracy or collusion (that includes xian scientists) that is also your choice. Again, not a rational one, but still your choice.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Without the correct interpretations, the Holy Tradition, the Sacraments and the example of the Saints…one is lost.

SaintOlaf on January 7, 2009 at 4:38 PM

oh really? well I’ll trust in Jesus, and His work on the cross…you trust in ‘the holy tradition’, the ‘sacraments’ and the ‘examples of the saints’

and we’ll see….

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 9:13 PM

Gene Splicer, I repeat:

Oh well, I can’t help you.

If you can’t understand the point, then I can’t help you. It’s not because you disagree, or any of your other rambling nonsense. It’s because you’re simply mischaracterizing what I said, either deliberately or because you simply don’t get it. Sorry, but I just don’t see the point in breaking it down simply again, because if you don’t get it (or pretend not to) then I’m not going to be able to change that.

RightWinged on January 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM

ongoing arguments. Evolution is not just a theory restricted to evolution.
Evolution has and does affect the biological sciences and has been backed up by genetic research.

evolution is a secular fairy tale. it has no backup in genetic research…ok answer me this…the tuatara, which has been found to have the fastest ‘micro’ evolution of any animal…and is yet a living dinosaur…why? why hasn’t that micro evolution translated to macro?? all you can give is a just-so story about it being ‘fit’ for its environment.

the whole concept of ‘natural selection’ is a tautology. if its fit, it survives…how do you know its fit? it survives…duhhhh

Tuatara Genes Are Running in Place 03/24/2008
March 24, 2008 — One would expect a living fossil to show extreme stasis at the genetic level. Not so for the tuatara, a New Zealand reptile, reported EurekAlert: researchers found that “although tuatara have remained largely physically unchanged over very long periods of evolution, they are evolving – at a DNA level – faster than any other animal yet examined.”

link

and when put to the test, evolution fails…

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.

link

all you have is faith in hairygod darwin…because like the multiverse, the alternative to darwinism is GOD..and that is unthinkable for ‘science’ that has become atheism.

the ‘scientists’ have to make up a fairy tale like the multiverse, to desperate avoid the anthropic principle..which by the way disproves evolution…if the universe is DESIGNED..for life..then life is designed…

but tell ya what…why don’t you just prove evolution?? should be easy…take a bacteria, and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal….you cannot, and will whine you need more ‘time’ proving evolution is a faith…you believe what you cannot see…

and don’t tell me about the fossil record…which proves ‘punctuated equilibrium’ no gradual sequences, no evolution…sorry.

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM

And again, the same simplistic dismissals are used by those who to try to denounce vaccines, modern medicine, date of the Earth, etc.

oh and BTW, evolution is useless when it comes to science..even if you believe ‘evolution’ is behind bacterial resistance to anti-biotics…then what is the next ‘evolution’ of a bacteria going to be? you don’t know…even coyne admits:

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

link

even the evolutionists bemoan the lack of ‘evolution’ in medical schools…

It is curious that Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution-antibiotic resistance-is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals [1].

link

and of course if it was ‘science’ then the ‘scientists’ wouldn’t act like imams, and harassing, silencing, sueing, all who dare not bow at the alter of their hairygod darwin….see sternberg, and what happened to him by the ‘tolerant’ IMAMS of ‘science’

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Evolution is not just a theory restricted to evolution.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM

you’re absolutely RIGHT!! its given us such wonders as eugenics, and the gas chambers…

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

and even the hairygod himself says:

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 9:31 PM

RightWinged
Gene Splicer, I repeat:
Oh well, I can’t help you.

Yes, and repetition is all you seem to be able to do.

If you can’t understand the point, then I can’t help you.

But I can understand the point and the point is that you simply dismiss that which you do not like or find as a threat to your faith and faith-based notions.

The fact remains you simply dismiss and do so with disparate theories.

It’s not because you disagree, or any of your other rambling nonsense.

So if I detail how your claims are not backed by anything of a verifiable nature or that you are dismissing theories due to your dislike alone, I am posting “rambling nonsense”. Again, all you have is simplistic dismissal and castigation.

It’s because you’re simply mischaracterizing what I said, either deliberately or because you simply don’t get it.

So again, a personal castigation is all you have. It is now me actively being intellectually dishonest or stupid.

Still, nothing of a rational nature to address the fact that you have simply dismissed theories based upon a personal dislike or perceived threat to your faith and faith-based beliefs.

Sorry, but I just don’t see the point in breaking it down simply again, because if you don’t get it (or pretend not to) then I’m not going to be able to change that.

In other words, you still cannot rationally defend your claim or points of view.

Odd how if what you claim is true about me that you can find the time to post more personal castigations and now try to allude to intellectually dishonestly on my part.

Again, if you have such facts on your side, then proving your claims would be very simply.

If however you are simply and ego driven xian apologist that cannot make a reasoned or rational argument, then such personal castigations are understandable.

So, unless you have something else to say other than you cannot help me, have more personal comments to make or need to satisfy your ego by posting your repetitious dismissals again, then there is nothing more for you to do other than back up your claims.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 9:35 PM

right4life
evolution is a secular fairy tale. it has no backup in genetic research

Then prove the human/great ape chromosome pair research erroneous.

If you cannot, then the only “fairy tale” would be your unsubstantiated dismissal of evolution.

But as with so many who deny that which they feel threatened by, you overlook one fact that challenges your secular claim. That would be the fact that so many of theist who are scientists also support the theory of evolution and are involved in the research related to it.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 9:40 PM

Then prove the human/great ape chromosome pair research erroneous

post a link…interesting that you cannot deal with anything I posted…not really surprising…for a ‘scientist’ I don’t see any links from you….hmmm…

I know you think the similarity between apes and men is ‘evolved’…but you know it could just as easily have been designed…

That would be the fact that so many of theist who are scientists also support the theory of evolution and are involved in the research related to it.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 9:40 PM

uh who cares? you don’t have anyting to back up evolution, sorry. you mean ‘theists’ like miller, right?? that say this:

Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

the ‘science’ of evolution…

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 9:46 PM

tell ya what genie, why don’t you give me the exact list of mutations that occured to evolve a single celled life form, like a bacteria, into a multi-ceullar life form?

or the exact set of mutations, in order, that was required to produce an eye….

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 9:48 PM

right4life

One link – pay source.

Second link – So where does it stat that evolution is worthless to medicine? Medical education is not the same as medical research in a field directly related or affect by the TOE.

And the laughable Ben Stein Nazi/Evolution claim. Sorry, but if evolution was responsible for the holocaust then the xian community must accept blame since Hitler was a theist.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 9:50 PM

here, explain this to me…

a little more about the retrovirus…
A HERV-K provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans.
link

there are pseudogenes found in humans and apes but not in chimps:
A truncated immunoglobulin epsilon pseudogene is found in gorilla and man but not in chimpanzee.
link
why are so many tests done on mice rather than on other primates? While it is also cheaper to do tests on mice, the real reason is that their bodily systems (especially the immune system) function more similarly to ours than do those of primates.
As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5′ and 3′ LTR sequences.
link

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 9:53 PM

One link – pay source.

Second link – So where does it stat that evolution is worthless to medicine? Medical education is not the same as medical research in a field directly related or affect by the TOE.

And the laughable Ben Stein Nazi/Evolution claim. Sorry, but if evolution was responsible for the holocaust then the xian community must accept blame since Hitler was a theist.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 9:50 PM

I put several links up there ‘friend’ only one is a pay site, and that is Coyne’s quote…but I know lies are OK to defend evolution!! anything to defend the hairygod!!

as I said, and backed up, unlike you, evolution is useless for medical research, practice, anything in science.

the research about pairs of beneficial mutations is free, read it, you might learn something…

as far as the darwinist link to the gas chambers…only a darwiniac would deny it…evolution is also racist as hell…as gould admitted:

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

here’s another one, explain this one…

In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys—but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

link

sorry, if I’m going a little too fast for you there genie…what was your explanation of the tuatara again???

don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath!

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 9:58 PM

Even if evolution were true,which it assuredly is NOT(population statistics alone completely rule out the possibility)…it would in no way disprove the existence of the Kingdom of God and the existence of the Holy Trinity.

I see that no atheist here is able to explain how hundreds and hundreds of thousands of witnesses have seen modern day Orthodox Christian Saints LEVITATE, read thoughts, perform miraculous healings and RAISE THE DEAD!

The fact is, there is far more to reality than science could ever explain and far more than you closed minded,bitter and arrogant atheists imagine!

SaintOlaf on January 7, 2009 at 10:07 PM

here’s another biologist that notices the link between Hitler and hairygod darwin…

“The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn’t intellectual opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene.” (Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], “Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World,” [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210).

everyone can see it but you…interesting…

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 10:07 PM

where’d ya go genie???

are you busying creating a new life form? like frankenstein??? or perhaps ‘evolving’ a bacteria into a multi-cellular life form??

or perhaps you’re just out relaxing…you know getting away from the stress of having to defend hairygod darwin…

kind of like jimmy swaggert used to do…from the stress of being so holy…

right4life on January 7, 2009 at 10:13 PM

right4life
tell ya what genie,

Wow. Do you normally regress to a child when talking to people you disagree with? Name alteration is a sad school-yard tactic. But if that is all you have.

why don’t you give me the exact list of mutations that occured to evolve a single celled life form, like a bacteria, into a multi-ceullar life form?

And your ridiculous demand is to prove what exactly other than the fact that you can make a ridiculous demand?

or the exact set of mutations, in order, that was required to produce an eye….

Make that ridiculous demands.

post a link…interesting that you cannot deal with anything I posted…not really surprising…for a ’scientist’ I don’t see any links from you….hmmm…

First of all, exactly where did I claim to be a scientist? Assumptions on your part seem to have track record of embarrassing you.

Secondly, I did address some of your points. Not too hard considering they are strawman claims.

Also, since when do my replies have to be in accordance with your acceptable time table? That is a rhetorical question, just in case.

Lastly, I thought you would be well verses in the genetic research you claim does not support evolution.

Unlike one of your links, I will not direct you to a pay-access board or violate their TOE by posting such material elsewhere.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

uh who cares?

Only someone trying to be consistent in their reasoning or claims. I find it hard to believe that so many theist would be part of such a secular fairy tale as you put it.

you don’t have anyting to back up evolution, sorry.

Only if you close your mind and/or reject anything but that which backs up your willing ignorance.

you mean ‘theists’ like miller, right?? that say this:

Miller would be one, but in true xian apologetic form, you take his personal comment about Darwin to be historical fact. Did Miller know Darwin? Did he discuss such matter with him? His personal opinion is fine, but it is just his opinion.

the ’science’ of evolution…

So what other forms of “science” do you reject out of hand?

You have shown to be able to misrepresent source material, make ridiculous demands and make the typical xian apologist arguments, but you have yet to prove your claim that evolution is a fairy tale.

And unlike in religion, ignorance and the part of science is not an inherent weakness or a sign that it is false, flawed, lacking or any other dismissal you can think of. Your viewing of science as having to operate like a religious faith is telling but fundamentally flawed.

I know you think the similarity between apes and men is ‘evolved’…but you know it could just as easily have been designed…

And you would have to prove that. Unlike faith, the base position in science is neutral and anyone making a claim must back up that claim. Preponderance of evidence, verifiability and repeatability will lend more and more credence to those claims.

So, have anything other than that or do I get more simple dismissals, demands that I post based upon your time table or juvenile name calling?

All you have to do is disprove the chromosome research and walla, you will have made history.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM

right4life

where’d ya go genie???
are you busying creating a new life form? like frankenstein??? or perhaps ‘evolving’ a bacteria into a multi-cellular life form??
or perhaps you’re just out relaxing…you know getting away from the stress of having to defend hairygod darwin…
kind of like jimmy swaggert used to do…from the stress of being so holy…

Wow. No personal animosity on your part at all. Such a kind testament from a representative of the religion you follow.

Luckily for me, we also like in a secular society where such seemingly inherently bitter and angry theist such as yourself cannot act out on such hatred without running afoul of the law.

But by all means, keep venting.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM

Wow. Do you normally regress to a child when talking to people you disagree with? Name alteration is a sad school-yard tactic. But if that is all you have.

you atheists sure are a sensitive lot…is that why you have to try to silence all who disagree with you like a bunch of fascist thugs?? (see sternberg, gonzales)

why don’t you give me the exact list of mutations that occured to evolve a single celled life form, like a bacteria, into a multi-ceullar life form?

And your ridiculous demand is to prove what exactly other than the fact that you can make a ridiculous demand?

whats ridiculous about it?? evolution says that single celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms….so give me the steps…but you can’t….you take it on faith….which all evolution is….atheism masquerading as science..

Secondly, I did address some of your points. Not too hard considering they are strawman claims.

in your dreams.

First of all, exactly where did I claim to be a scientist? Assumptions on your part seem to have track record of embarrassing you.

your monikor is ‘gene splicer’

or the exact set of mutations, in order, that was required to produce an eye….
Make that ridiculous demands.

again, WHY is that ridiculous?? you believe eyes evolved, right?? then give me the list of mutations that caused the eye to evolve. the only thing that is ridiculous is your faith in evolution.

Lastly, I thought you would be well verses in the genetic research you claim does not support evolution.

much better than you obviously *smirk*

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

uh those can be explained by design too…and you cannot explain what I posted about apes and humans…

Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar genetic building blocks

link

does that mean we evolved from jellyfish?? no obviously its a mark of design, not evolution.

Only someone trying to be consistent in their reasoning or claims. I find it hard to believe that so many theist would be part of such a secular fairy tale as you put it.

oh yeah this is typical atheist ‘logic’ if one christian does something evil..then all are evil….if one christian believes in evolution, then evolution is christian!! right.

Only if you close your mind and/or reject anything but that which backs up your willing ignorance.

you can’t give me the sequence of mutations that ‘evolved’ anything….to you even asking is ‘ridiculous’ can’t question your faith in the hairyone can we?? laughable.

Miller would be one, but in true xian apologetic form, you take his personal comment about Darwin to be historical fact. Did Miller know Darwin? Did he discuss such matter with him? His personal opinion is fine, but it is just his opinion.

‘personal comment’??? in a textbook?? I mean you are laughably deluded. lying for darwin, no surprise. its not his ‘opinion’ its part of a textbook…please.

You have shown to be able to misrepresent source material, make ridiculous demands and make the typical xian apologist arguments, but you have yet to prove your claim that evolution is a fairy tale.

you’re a liar. you can’t deal with the facts, and cannot defend your hairygod darwin, so you have to lie for that racist. I’ve already proven it, you’re just too stupid to get it. no surprise, you are an atheist after all!

And unlike in religion, ignorance and the part of science is not an inherent weakness or a sign that it is false, flawed, lacking or any other dismissal you can think of. Your viewing of science as having to operate like a religious faith is telling but fundamentally flawed.

oh yes, more proof that evolution is faith!! you can’t explain it, reproduce it, or view it in the fossil record, yet you believe it…and anything you can’t answer WILL be answered someday!!! faith…

And you would have to prove that. Unlike faith, the base position in science is neutral and anyone making a claim must back up that claim. Preponderance of evidence, verifiability and repeatability will lend more and more credence to those claims.

since you cannot give the sequence of mutations that led to humans from apes…I already have. and given the eye in a squid is very similar to a human eye…you have to believe somehow the eye evolved in very dissimilar lines, or the eye was designed…which makes more sense??? obviously design..except to the IMAMS of the hairygod darwin…

All you have to do is disprove the chromosome research and walla, you will have made history.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM

nothing could disprove evolution to the faithful wackos like you…but ya got nothing…and I do enjoy making you look stupid, not that its very hard…

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Luckily for me, we also like in a secular society where such seemingly inherently bitter and angry theist such as yourself cannot act out on such hatred without running afoul of the law.

But by all means, keep venting.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM

yeah we’ve seen how ‘peaceful’ and ‘benevolent’ you atheists like:

Stalin
Mao
Kim jong Il
Pol Pot

are!! you atheists have a great track record in ‘tolerance’ ie in slaughtering those you disagree with…and oppressing and silencing those you cannot kill, like sternberg.

if you atheists get power again, we know what will happen…as you make sacrifices to your bloody hairgod darwin!

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 9:07 AM

But by all means, keep venting.

Gene Splicer on January 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM

you mistake making fun of you for ‘animosity’ but no surprise that any disagreement with such a pompous twit like you is considered an ‘attack’

thanks for the laughs! loser.

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 9:11 AM

does that mean we evolved from jellyfish?? no obviously its a mark of design, not evolution.

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Right, do you even read and comprehend the things you link to? You post a lot of links and I admittedly only bother to follow a few. When I do bother, I often find that the content doesn’t support the argument you seem to think they do. Case in point, the following is a quote from the article re jellyfish you linked above:

Instead, it’s more likely that jellyfish and vertebrates evolved their eyes by independently recruiting the same genetic building blocks, in a case of parallel evolution.

DarkCurrent on January 8, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Leviticus
4:14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. “The bullock shall be killed before the Lord.”
4:15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.
4:16 And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock’s blood to the tabernacle of the congregation:
4:17 And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, even before the vail.
.

Remember, sins are to be atoned for by offering a bullock. Dipping of the priestly fingers in bullock blood is important and not to be omitted. Listen to the words long written down.

DarkCurrent on January 8, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Right, do you even read and comprehend the things you link to? You post a lot of links and I admittedly only bother to follow a few. When I do bother, I often find that the content doesn’t support the argument you seem to think they do. Case in point, the following is a quote from the article re jellyfish you linked above:

oh please, give me a break…I post from evolutionary sources…thus you get the following ‘just-so’ story…

Instead, it’s more likely that jellyfish and vertebrates evolved their eyes by independently recruiting the same genetic building blocks, in a case of parallel evolution.
DarkCurrent on January 8, 2009 at 11:02 AM

uh yeah right…of course they did!! there they are…so SHAZAM it must have evolved!! no other explanation is possible or even thought of….

‘independently recruiting’ uh huh..that evolution SHO IS CLEVER…sounds like evolution is the intelligent designer!!

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 11:31 AM

and of course we have no idea what sequence of mutations could cause eyesight in the firstplace…or why eyesight would even need to ‘evolve’ when bacteria can survive just fine without it…and of course the odds of the same types of eyes ‘evolving’ independently are astronomical…and of course we cannot see the gradualistic sequences in the fossil record…and we cannot duplicate evolution of anything in the lab…but WE KNOW IT EVOLVED…because EVOLUTION IS TRUE!!!!!

just like we know natural selection is true, because if its fit, it survives!!!

your faith is amusing..but to call evolution ‘science’ is a joke.

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 11:38 AM

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 11:38 AM

True, bacteria survive without eyes. On the other hand, if a single-celled creature could have eyes I suppose they’d gain a survival advantage if they evolved them.

I know it’s coming, so let me state up front that no, we don’t know exactly how multicelluar life evolved in the first place. It’s a hot topic of research however. It seems science has decided not to invent a ‘just-so’ story for this one yet, and even admit it an open question. Imagine, an open question…

Just because we don’t yet (and may never) know the exact series of mutations that produce a particular feature doesn’t mean that some series of mutations can’t produce that feature, and therefore doesn’t by itself undermine the theory of evolution. It simply means there are unresolved details.

Evolution could be wrong. One way to prove it would be to identify a biological feature that could be shown to be absolutely impossible to arise through any series of mutations. If that can be demonstrated the theory of evolution will either need to be fundamentally revamped or discarded all together. This is what distinguishes science from faith. (Do I hear the bombadier beetle example coming?)

Now I’ve said evolution could be wrong. This indicates it’s not a blind faith for me. Can you say the same of your creationism? If so, can you give an example of the sort of evidence that would convince you creationism should be discarded?

DarkCurrent on January 8, 2009 at 11:57 AM

On the other hand, if a single-celled creature could have eyes I suppose they’d gain a survival advantage if they evolved them.

you ‘suppose’ but you don’t know…and they do quite well, and have done quite well without eyes…

Just because we don’t yet (and may never) know the exact series of mutations that produce a particular feature doesn’t mean that some series of mutations can’t produce that feature, and therefore doesn’t by itself undermine the theory of evolution. It simply means there are unresolved details.

the faith of the evolutionist…its just like the fossil record…150 years of looking, no gradual sequences…thus ‘punctuated equilibrium’…but they’re there…somewhere…it’ll just take more time…

the evolutionary story line:

(1) assume evolution,
(2) personify Nature, and
(3) wave the magic wand of millions of years.

Evolution could be wrong. One way to prove it would be to identify a biological feature that could be shown to be absolutely impossible to arise through any series of mutations. If that can be demonstrated the theory of evolution will either need to be fundamentally revamped or discarded all together. This is what distinguishes science from faith. (Do I hear the bombadier beetle example coming?)

its been done…ever hear of BEHE??? doesn’t matter he was REFUTED by some ‘just so’ story..its really laughable.

If so, can you give an example of the sort of evidence that would convince you creationism should be discarded?

sure, mix a few chemicals together and produce life…should be easy, right???

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 12:15 PM

It’s a hot topic of research however. It seems science has decided not to invent a ‘just-so’ story for this one yet, and even admit it an open question. Imagine, an open question…

an yes abiogenesis has been a ‘hot topic’ of research for decades now…and its gotten….nowhere….

Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies co-authored Origins of Life on the Earth (1973) with Stanley Miller wrote his last work…

The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth

Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.

link

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Evolution could be wrong. One way to prove it would be to identify a biological feature that could be shown to be absolutely impossible to arise through any series of mutations. If that can be demonstrated the theory of evolution will either need to be fundamentally revamped or discarded all together. This is what distinguishes science from faith. (Do I hear the bombadier beetle example coming?)

its been done…ever hear of BEHE??? doesn’t matter he was REFUTED by some ‘just so’ story..its really laughable.

one other thing…we don’t know the sequence of mutations that evolved ANYTHING at all…doesn’t matter…evolution MUST HAVE HAPPENED…

evolution is nothing more than atheistic faith…seeing what you want to see….just like the multiverse…totally unscientific, but the alternative, GOD…is UNTHINKABLE…because ‘science’ has become atheism…

right4life on January 8, 2009 at 12:26 PM

right4life
you atheists sure are a sensitive lot…

You are confused. It is not a matter of sensitively but rather simply civility. Many things define a person such as their actions. Your child-like name calling defines you.

is that why you have to try to silence all who disagree with you like a bunch of fascist thugs?? (see sternberg, gonzales)

I’m sorry but you provided no link or fact to back up your questionable claims. Do you have any or is this just more empty rhetoric?

And again, who is it that, when face with a person they disagree with, resorted to name calling? That would be you. Such a representative of a faith.

whats ridiculous about it??

It is ridiculous because it is a strawman claim. You are operating on the flawed notion that lack of knowledge is a weakness. For religion, that might be true, but not so for science.

evolution says that single celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms….so give me the steps…but you can’t….

And again, lack of knowledge does not make any scientific theory wrong. If so, then using your reasoning gravity, plate tectonics and a plethora of other theories are also false.

you take it on faith….

And you resort to the typical pedantic games of a xian apologist. Contrary to such claims, faith and belief exists outside of religion. You simply seek to use the term faith to mean blind religious faith.

I can believe based upon the prior history that politicians will seek to take more money from me as well as take more rights away from me. Absolutely no religion needed.

I can also have faith that, based upon the past history of our planet and solar system, that the sun will rise tomorrow. Again, absolutely no religion needed.

which all evolution is….

According to a juvenile xian apologist who denies that which she simply disagrees with due to her religious faith.

atheism masquerading as science..

And we have the final lynch pin. Evolution is automatically atheistic due to the fact that is challenges the claims of your religion. Again, you miss or ignore the fact that many theists also support and actively research evolution.

in your dreams.

Simplistic dismissal on your part.

your monikor is ‘gene splicer’

And like I stated before, your assumptions tend to end up embarrassing you.

again, WHY is that ridiculous??

Because science currently lacks that knowledge. And again, you view science as you do a religion. Lack of knowledge on the part of science is not a weakness.

you believe eyes evolved, right?? then give me the list of mutations that caused the eye to evolve.

And again, that is a ridiculous demand. The fact that you think it is a legitimate one illustrates your intellectual dishonesty in posting such a strawman.

the only thing that is ridiculous is your faith in evolution.

And again, you have to resort to word games and seek to insult something you do not appear to understand or simply reject due to a perceived threat to your religion.

much better than you obviously *smirk*

So obviously that your citation of genetic research does not support your claims that evolution is wrong.

uh those can be explained by design too…

Odd how that always seems to be the case after the fact or after science finds more proof for evolution. You see, one of the old xian apologetic claims about evolution being wrong was the fact that that man had 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the great apes had 24 pairs. After we discover the merged chromosome pair, the xian apologist claims changes. Very nebulous position your side seems to operate from.

and you cannot explain what I posted about apes and humans…

And which taken out of context quote would that be?

Jellyfish and human eyes assembled using similar genetic building blocks

does that mean we evolved from jellyfish?? no obviously its a mark of design, not evolution.

And these are yet more examples of misrepresentation and fallacious claims on your part due to your lack of comprehension of what evolution is.

And who would assume that if we have a commonality with a jellyfish that that mean we evolved form one? That is an example of your lack of comprehension of the TOE.

And then we have the non-sequitor conclusion that it is a mark of design based upon your personal bias for selective support of the pseudoscience of intelligent design.

oh yeah this is typical atheist ‘logic’ if one christian does something evil..then all are evil….if one christian believes in evolution, then evolution is christian!! right.

You still cannot grasp what I am stating and have misrepresented what I have stated. Please cite where I stated that evolution was anything other than a scientific theory? Cite where I state it is atheistic? Cite where I claim it is xian? You cannot because such claims and biases are yours and typical of the xian apologist point of view.

The fact remain that you fallaciously call evolution atheistic but ignore the fact that it is supported by and researched by scientist that are theists. And odd how when I state theist, you think xian. There are other religions besides yours. Very limited point of view on your part.

you can’t give me the sequence of mutations that ‘evolved’ anything….

Because it is a nonsensical and irrational demand. Making it only proves that you have to resort to such.

to you even asking is ‘ridiculous’

And the fact that you cannot see that proves my point. You simply do not understand that which you so gleefully rally against.

can’t question your faith in the hairyone can we??

And then you go back to more fallacious claims about me and more grade-school castigations about a person of history you personally hate.

laughable.

Your typical behavior? Yes, sadly it is. If you must resort to such name calling, then you have nothing to debate with. If the fact were on your side, simply posting them would suffice.

‘personal comment’??? in a textbook?? I mean you are laughably deluded.

And more personal castigation will not change the fact that you have to posts opinions as historical facts. Again, did he know Darwin? Did he ever discuss such matter with Darwin? He can make all the claims he wants, but they are simply personal claims when it comes to what Darwin thought at the time outside of what he clearly stated.

lying for darwin, no surprise.

And using personal comments and trying to misrepresent them as facts of history is sad. Again, you have to resort to dishonest actions to support your claims.

its not his ‘opinion’ its part of a textbook…please.

So I guess you take the simplistic view that if it is in a textbook, it is not opinion but rock solid fact. Odd how such a standard doesn’t apply to say any other aspect of that same textbook regarding the facts of evolution. Those of course are erroneous, but this one selective claim is fact. Your intellectual dishonesty is painfully obvious in such a double standard.

you’re a liar.

And posting more personal insults does nothing to back up your claims any more than your grade-school name calling does.

you can’t deal with the facts,

What facts? What you have posted so does not support your claims that evolution is false. It does support the fact that you do not understand the TOE and simplistically reject it feeling justified in using any manner of ill behavior.

and cannot defend your hairygod darwin,

And more personal insults about a figure of history you hate. If you were capable of rational thought and reason, you could debate you claims. The fact that you have to resort to such behavior illustrates your lack of such substantiation.

so you have to lie for that racist.

Wow. So now he is a racist. With such a closed mind, it is no wonder you so easily attack anything or anyone that you feel threatens your religion.

I’ve already proven it, you’re just too stupid to get it.

No, you have posted articles you have taken out of context or tried to misrepresent based upon your lack of understanding what the TOE is.

And resorting to yet more personal insults. So typical of people who fear or hate anything that challenges their religious faith.

no surprise, you are an atheist after all!

And another condemnation. So in your mind, atheist typical lie, lie for a racist and are just stupid.

And who is it in this conversation that has resorted to personal castigations, dismissals and grade-school level name calling? Odd how your actions do not support your claims.

oh yes, more proof that evolution is faith!!

And another example of how you have to resort to word games.

you can’t explain it,

Fallacious claim on your part. Cite where you asked me to explain the TOE and I failed.

reproduce it,

You ask for what is ridiculous and think it is a rational demand. Again, your lack of understanding of what the TOE is or even how science operates in general.

or view it in the fossil record,

According to your simplistic dismissals. You cannot show a person anything if they have a closed mind such as yours.

yet you believe it…

Yes, but not in the word game manner you mean.

and anything you can’t answer WILL be answered someday!!! faith…

Based upon the proven track record of what science has done so far. Again, absolutely no religion needed. You again have to resort to word games in order to try to denounce science or try to prove it wrong due to your view that it operates like a religion.

since you cannot give the sequence of mutations that led to humans from apes…I already have.

No, you have just made a laughable ridiculous demand. The fact that your replies increasing contain more and more personal insults and lack any material substance shown just how much you do not have to support your claims.

and given the eye in a squid is very similar to a human eye…you have to believe somehow the eye evolved in very dissimilar lines,

Again, your simplistic and.or erronious view of the TOE.

or the eye was designed…

By your god of course, none others. Odd thing that.

which makes more sense???

Considering that science deals with the natural world and not the supernatural world, evolution makes much more sense.

obviously design..

Only if you have blind faith in creation mythologies or beleive in magic.

except to the IMAMS of the hairygod darwin…

Actually, the TOE can be proven wrong but it would take something you simply do not have; proof.

And again, you have nothing so you resort to more personal insults. Typical.

but ya got nothing…

Nothing you are capable of understanding. Yes, you have illustrated that quite well in your claims.

and I do enjoy making you look stupid,

Again, you have to resort to personal insults and grade-school level name calling and you think I am the one who looks stupid.

But again, I guess you are justified since you are defending your faith and all.

not that its very hard…

To be that dishonest of a xian apologists? Of course not.

yeah we’ve seen how ‘peaceful’ and ‘benevolent’ you atheists like:
Stalin
Mao
Kim jong Il
Pol Pot

And more simplistic comparisons. Life must be pretty easy when all you have to do is repeat the fallacious claims of other xian apologists.

are!! you atheists have a great track record in ‘tolerance’ ie in slaughtering those you disagree with…and oppressing and silencing those you cannot kill, like sternberg.

Again, only viewed with a simplistic bias of the devoutly faithful.

if you atheists get power again, we know what will happen…as you make sacrifices to your bloody hairgod darwin!

Your hate-based hypothetical versus the proven track record of xians limiting personal freedoms and violating rights in the name of their god.

The hatred from you is just amazing.

you mistake making fun of you for ‘animosity’

Such a fabrication on your part. You absolutely seethe with hatred towards anyone who you perceive as a threat to your religion.

but no surprise that any disagreement with such a pompous twit like you is considered an ‘attack’

So now I am pompous? And why would that be? Could it be due to the fact that I refrain from acting like a grade-school child as you have and used grade-school name calling?

Or could it be the fact that you find some problem with my diction or vocabulary?

thanks for the laughs! loser.

Again, you have to resort to personal insults over and over. In any debate, once you take such an action, you have already lost the debate.

At least you dropped the demands that I reply according to your time table.

But again, keep the hate-filled comments and Kent Hovind claims coming. You keep proving my point.

evolution is nothing more than atheistic faith…seeing what you want to see….just like the multiverse…totally unscientific, but the alternative, GOD…is UNTHINKABLE…because ’science’ has become atheism…

And your ignorance is simply confirmed. Science cannot and does not deal with the supernatural. This includes any god, gods, deities, fairy magic or similar supernatural claims.

The fact that you keep thinking that this fact of science makes it atheistic illustrates just how you simply do not comprehend that which you rally against.

And again, the same arguments that you make against the TOE based upon what we don’t yet know are typical of similar attacks on other theories that, for some odd reason, you don’t seem to have a problem with even though many of them also prove the claims made by your religion are erroneous or also threaten your religions’ claim as irrefutable fact.

And here is some more proof for you to simplistically dismiss or ignore. Evolution of a bacteria through a mutation that allowed it to take advantage of a food source that simply didn’t exists until after the 1930’s.

Now if you have to make up some sort of explanation to address this beneficial mutation, you end up with claims that god knew that nylon would be created one day and “designed” the bacteria to be able to take advantage of it.

That level of nebulous after-the-fact magical explanation is simply out of the realm of both reason and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

But I’m sure there is some other non-atheistic-science explanation.

Gene Splicer on January 8, 2009 at 10:22 PM

right4life
an yes abiogenesis has been a ‘hot topic’ of research for decades now…and its gotten….nowhere….

And more confusion on your part. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life no matter what the felon Hovind states.

Again, scientific theories stand on their own. You keep lumping any theory together that you feel threatened your religion.

That must be one long list considering just how many claims from your religion science has proven to be erroneous over time.

Gene Splicer on January 8, 2009 at 10:35 PM

And more confusion on your part. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life no matter what the felon Hovind states.

somehow I knew you’d spew talking points…and who is hovind? why do you keep briging him up? you sound like a wacko.

explain this:

Next to life itself, the origin of complex cells is one of the most fundamental, and intractable, problems in evolutionary biology. Progress in this area relies heavily on an understanding of the relationships between present-day organisms, yet despite tremendous advances over the last half-century scientists remain firmly divided on how to best classify cellular life.

2. John M. Archibald, “The Eocyte Hypothesis and the Origin of Eukaryotic Cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Published online before print December 17, 2008, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811118106.

That must be one long list considering just how many claims from your religion science has proven to be erroneous over time.

actually none. post your proof, this should be good for a laugh…more idiotic atheist BS no doubt!

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM

is that why you have to try to silence all who disagree with you like a bunch of fascist thugs?? (see sternberg, gonzales)

I’m sorry but you provided no link or fact to back up your questionable claims. Do you have any or is this just more empty rhetoric?

I named sternberg and gonzales…you’re either a liar, or just plain stupid…look it up…duhhhhh

whats ridiculous about it??

It is ridiculous because it is a strawman claim. You are operating on the flawed notion that lack of knowledge is a weakness. For religion, that might be true, but not so for science.

so you don’t know the sequence of mutations…BUT THERE MUST BE SOME BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS TRUE…duhhhhh you’re a caricature…all you have is faith…

evolution says that single celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms….so give me the steps…but you can’t….
And again, lack of knowledge does not make any scientific theory wrong. If so, then using your reasoning gravity, plate tectonics and a plethora of other theories are also false.

again the FAITH of the darwiniac….if you can’t duplicate it, see it in the fossil record…then its FAITH..duhhh moron.

you believe eyes evolved, right?? then give me the list of mutations that caused the eye to evolve.

And again, that is a ridiculous demand. The fact that you think it is a legitimate one illustrates your intellectual dishonesty in posting such a strawman.

What BS!! you really are a laughable fool. you can’t tell me the mutations…but you have FAITH they happened…thats not science…duhhhhh

I’m not going to bother with the rest of your drivel…when you have some facts, instead of lame ‘bending over for darwin’ BS let me know.

you’re out of your league sonny boy.

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM

And here is some more proof for you to simplistically dismiss or ignore. Evolution of a bacteria through a mutation that allowed it to take advantage of a food source that simply didn’t exists until after the 1930’s.

Now if you have to make up some sort of explanation to address this beneficial mutation, you end up with claims that god knew that nylon would be created one day and “designed” the bacteria to be able to take advantage of it.

That level of nebulous after-the-fact magical explanation is simply out of the realm of both reason and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

But I’m sure there is some other non-atheistic-science

uh moron…ITS STILL A BACTERIA…DUHHHHH THATS NOT EVOLUTION…sigh…. pathetic.

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 10:14 AM

uh moron…ITS STILL A BACTERIA…DUHHHHH THATS NOT EVOLUTION…sigh…. pathetic.

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 10:14 AM

It’s an example of the evolution of new kind of bacteria.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 10:43 AM

It’s an example of the evolution of new kind of bacteria.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 10:43 AM

post your proof that its a ‘new’ kind of bacteria…

you might find this interesting..

nylon

antibiotic resistance

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:05 AM

The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers). Nor is it clear that in the evolution of nylonase that anything like pure neo-Darwinism was operating. Instead, we see something much more like what James Shapiro describes as “natural genetic engineering” (go here). And how do systems that do their own genetic engineering arise? According to Shapiro, Darwinism (whether neo or otherwise) offers no insight here.

link

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM

you might find this interesting..

nylon

antibiotic resistance

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:05 AM

That was interesting. To a non-biologist it seems like a plausible alternative theory in this case.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM

“Sounds a lot like the nylon bug always being touted. In the case of the nylon bug, information was lost and the new enzyme was many times less efficient than its precursor, making the minor advantage null.

1. The bug went from 100% efficiency to 2% efficiency to metabolize.
2. The bug lost genetic info as a result of a frameshift.
3. The bug has a lower reproductive rate and efficiency.
4. The bug cannot survive amongst the parent species.
5. The bug acquired no functional divergence.

An increase of information requires functional divergence without information loss. Going from metabolic function to metabolic function is not considered functional divergence. Going from, say, a sequence that codes for a metabolic function to a sequence that codes for oxygen transport would be considered ‘functional divergence.’ ”

link

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM

That was interesting. To a non-biologist it seems like a plausible alternative theory in this case.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM

of course to a biologist evolution is always the answer…

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM

is every change in an organism evolution? is dwarfism, or red hair, or green eyes in humans an example of evolution?

its obvious that ‘micro’ changes occur in the genome…and what is a species, lions and tigers can mate and produce a liger…

evolutionists use things like the nylon bug to INFER that macro changes CAN occur from micro changes..but there are no examples of this…in fact there is just the opposite example…the tuatara, with the fastest ‘micro’ evolution…its a living dinosaur…

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM

of course to a biologist evolution is always the answer…

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The mechanism that enabled it could have evolved. It would be an extremely useful mechanism and conserved.
Of course to creationists, the supernatural is always the answer to any non-trivial question. As Gene Splice tried to explain to you, science (including biology) must by definition exclude the supernatural.
Frankly I’m not well educated in the field of biology. If you want to debate evidence for the age of the universe again though, I’ll be back later to give you another thumpin’

In any case, don’t forget the salt.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Of course to creationists, the supernatural is always the answer to any non-trivial question. As Gene Splice tried to explain to you, science (including biology) must by definition exclude the supernatural.

actually the answer isn’t the ‘supernatural’ rather as I alluded to earlier, a certain amount of variability is DESIGNED into the genome.

as far as ‘excluding the supernatural’ why? shouldn’t science go where the data leads?? and what is supernatural, and what is natural?? do you know???

all ‘science’ does is EXCLUDE GOD a priori

If you want to debate evidence for the age of the universe again though, I’ll be back later to give you another thumpin’

In any case, don’t forget the salt.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM

‘another’..surely you jest!! and yes there are a lot of things out there that make you question the age of the universe…unless you’re a darwiniac of course…then time is the *magic* ingrediant…

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:46 AM

It would be an extremely useful mechanism and conserved.

why does evolution ‘conserve’ anything? and how does evolution *know* to ‘conserve’ something?

oh yeah because it survives…another tautology…

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:47 AM

actually the answer isn’t the ’supernatural’ rather as I alluded to earlier, a certain amount of variability is DESIGNED into the genome.

Designed by what?

‘another’..surely you jest!! and yes there are a lot of things out there that make you question the age of the universe…unless you’re a darwiniac of course…then time is the *magic* ingrediant…

Yes, another. It’s very clear to me from previous threads where we touched on the subject that you don’t personally have a very good understanding of the subject. I’m confident it was clear to the majority of readers that you got a thumpin’. It’s too bad we don’t have a feature here to vote on such things.

I’m off to bed now (12:51 AM in my timezone), but I’ll be back tomorrow. Don’t get impatient for a reply in the meantime.

And don’t forget the salt!

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Designed by what?

to me *WHO* but ID excludes that.

Yes, another. It’s very clear to me from previous threads where we touched on the subject that you don’t personally have a very good understanding of the subject.

really? but of course if I was an evolutionist, you’d consider me brilliant!!

confident it was clear to the majority of readers that you got a thumpin’. It’s too bad we don’t have a feature here to vote on such things.

laughable. you’re a legend in your own mind…you are unable to respond to any points I have made…still haven’t explained the tuatara now have you?

the truth isn’t up for a vote…sorry.

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I’m off to bed now (12:51 AM in my timezone), but I’ll be back tomorrow. Don’t get impatient for a reply in the meantime.

DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:53 AM

you haven’t given me a reply to date, so I don’t expect any tomorrow!

right4life on January 9, 2009 at 12:12 PM

right4life
somehow I knew you’d spew talking points…

The sad thing is that it is not a talking point but a fact about the theories you like to try to tie together.

and who is hovind? why do you keep briging him up?

That would be the felon “Dr. Dino” Kent Hovind the creator of many of the fallacious claim you repeat.

you sound like a wacko.

And posting more personal insults still doesn’t do anything for your argument, claims or reputation online.

explain this:

What about it? You again are misrepresenting or cannot understand what you are quoting.

actually none. post your proof, this should be good for a laugh…more idiotic atheist BS no doubt!

So if science has not proven the claims of your bible in error, the Earth must be flat, the universe must revolve around the Earth, rabbits must chew cuds and you can change the appearance of the offspring of sheep by placing rod of different metal in front of them.

named sternberg and gonzales…you’re either a liar, or just plain stupid…look it up…duhhhhh

And yet you ignorantly could not goggle Hovind? Such slothfulness.

But, that is not how it works. Your claims require you to post the information. Making general single name references is meaningless just as your proclivity to call people liars rather than backing your argument up does nothing but illustrate your lack of any proof.

so you don’t know the sequence of mutations…BUT THERE MUST BE SOME BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS TRUE…duhhhhh you’re a caricature…all you have is faith…

And all you have are intellectually dishonest demands and word games. So what else is new? And now you have to scream your reply. So sad but typical. You simply cannot conduct yourself in a rational and civil manner.

again the FAITH of the darwiniac….if you can’t duplicate it, see it in the fossil record…then its FAITH..duhhh moron.

And more intellectually dishonest replies form the theistic apologist. All you have are word games and erroneous claims about a theory you simply do not understand.

What BS!! you really are a laughable fool. you can’t tell me the mutations…but you have FAITH they happened…thats not science…duhhhhh

You again try to make unreasonable demands. Even if we could evolve and eye, your demands for anyone to list the mutation that caused the eye to develop is simply ridiculous. Short of a time machine, it is highly unlikely that we will know the exact mutation that caused, past tense, the evolution of the eye.

The fact that you think this ridiculous demand is proof of anything but your lack of comprehension of what science is and how it operates illustrates your closed minded and polarized outlook.

I’m not going to bother with the rest of your drivel…

In other words, all you have are insults and you cannot back up your claims rationally.

when you have some facts, instead of lame ‘bending over for darwin’ BS let me know.

Wow. A gay reference as well? So your reputation as a homophobe is fact.

Oh, but I have proof and you ignored it due again to you complete and utter lack of understanding of what evolution is. Here, let me demonstrate.

uh moron…ITS STILL A BACTERIA…DUHHHHH THATS NOT EVOLUTION…sigh…. pathetic.

Well, first of all, so much for not replying to the rest of my posts.

You simplistic dismissal proves my point that you simply do not understand what evolution is. Sadly, like far too many willingly ignorant theists, you think that evolution mean that one “kind” turns into another. This is illustrated in your reply that the bacteria is still a bacteria. You simply totally missed, ignored or were simply not able to understand the fact that a beneficial mutation allowed the bacteria to take advantage of a new food source. That is an example of evolution.

Further proof is your citation of a religious site rather than any scientific one for proof that evolution did not happen. That feeds right into your previous ignorant comment that science is now atheistic when all along science is and will remain free of any sort of supernatural or magic claims due to the way science operates and what it addresses.

Gene Splicer on January 9, 2009 at 8:47 PM

That would be the felon “Dr. Dino” Kent Hovind the creator of many of the fallacious claim you repeat.

I haven’t made any…have you proven your ‘theory’ yet…evolved anything yet?? created a new life form?? no???

So if science has not proven the claims of your bible in error, the Earth must be flat, the universe must revolve around the Earth, rabbits must chew cuds and you can change the appearance of the offspring of sheep by placing rod of different metal in front of them.

more atheist ‘interpretation’ of the bible too funny!! lying for darwin again!! its all ya got…

You again try to make unreasonable demands. Even if we could evolve and eye, your demands for anyone to list the mutation that caused the eye to develop is simply ridiculous. Short of a time machine, it is highly unlikely that we will know the exact mutation that caused, past tense, the evolution of the eye.

oh please this is laughable. you cannot list the sequence of mutations for ANYTHING…yet you have FAITH that those mutations happened…its not science its faith in your hairygod darwin…laughable.

oh yes the faith in ‘TIME’ please its laughable..

Evolution Occurs in the Blink of an Eye
A population of butterflies has evolved in a flash on a South Pacific island to fend off a deadly parasite.

link

there you go, see you don’t need ‘time’. you’ve had 150 years of the same old lies…and ya got nothing, zero, zip, nada…you claim evolution is ‘science’ but you have no facts to back it up…just faith…and the hope that ‘someday’ you’ll figure it out….amazing.

You simplistic dismissal proves my point that you simply do not understand what evolution is. Sadly, like far too many willingly ignorant theists, you think that evolution mean that one “kind” turns into another. This is illustrated in your reply that the bacteria is still a bacteria. You simply totally missed, ignored or were simply not able to understand the fact that a beneficial mutation allowed the bacteria to take advantage of a new food source. That is an example of evolution.

first off, there is quite a bit of debate whether it was beneficial or not…and even then, you have a beneficial mutation??? so?? it is still a bacteria…you need many, many beneficial mutations….but they don’t add up…as I posted earlier, and you were obviously too stupid to understand…try again…

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.

link

since you obviously didn’t understand it the first time…this study tried to add beneficial mutations together…and notice that study has not been done before…so much for ‘science’….and notice the phrase
all significant interactions were antagonistic. thats not good…in other words…an organism can only support so many mutations, then it dies…ever hear of Haldane’s dilemma??? try looking that up…..sigh.

here’s another one…

The team tested the robustness of E. coli while mutating a gene for a lactamase (TEM-1) that confers some resistance to ampicillin.

Subjecting TEM-1 to random mutational drift and purifying selection (to purge deleterious mutations) produced changes in its fitness landscape indicative of negative epistasis; that is, the combined deleterious effects of mutations were, on average, larger than expected from the multiplication of their individual effects. As observed in computational systems, negative epistasis was tightly associated with higher tolerance to mutations (robustness). Thus, under a low selection pressure, a large fraction of mutations was initially tolerated (high robustness), but as mutations accumulated, their fitness toll increased, resulting in the observed negative epistasis. These findings, supported by FoldX stability computations of the mutational effects, prompt a new model in which the mutational robustness (or neutrality) observed in proteins, and other biological systems, is due primarily to a stability margin, or threshold, that buffers the deleterious physico-chemical effects of mutations on fitness. Threshold robustness is inherently epistatic-once the stability threshold is exhausted, the deleterious effects of mutations become fully pronounced, thereby making proteins far less robust than generally assumed.

Bershtein et al, “Robustness-epistasis link shapes the fitness landscape of a randomly drifting protein,” Nature 444, 929-932 (14 December 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05385.

it basically says the same thing for bacteria.

now get a clue…mutations do NOT add up. sorry. all you have is FAITH that they do…and even if you find one beneficial mutation..think of the problems of spreading it through a population…thats why you do NOT have fossil sequences of transitions, and you cannot demonstrate evolution in a lab…and you have to appeal to a FAITH IN TIME to support evolution.

if it was ‘science’ you’d be able to give me those sequences of mutations…that you cannot, says it all….

right4life on January 10, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Further proof is your citation of a religious site rather than any scientific one for proof that evolution did not happen. That feeds right into your previous ignorant comment that science is now atheistic when all along science is and will remain free of any sort of supernatural or magic claims due to the way science operates and what it addresses.

more lying for darwin…I’ve posted scientific sites…much more than you have…moron, all you have is ‘wikpedia’ DUHHHHHHH idiot.

right4life on January 10, 2009 at 9:17 AM

oh I looked up Hovind…he was convicted of TAX crimes…yeah that TOTALLY discredits creationism!! duhhhhh

2 can play the smear game…

since you spout the racist theory of that proven RACIST DARINW and WATSON..you are a RACIST!!

oh and as far as sternberg…just proves what fascist little brown-shirt thugs you darwiniacs are…

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for “intelligent design,” a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand — subtle or not — of an intelligent creator.

Richard Sternberg came under fire from Smithsonian scientists over an article questioning evolutionary theory. (By Michael Williamson — The Washington Post)

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution — which has helped fund and run the journal — lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

“They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists,” said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. “I was basically run out of there.”

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a “creationist.”

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that “retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false.”

“The rumor mill became so infected,” James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, “that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist.”

link

smearing and lying for darwin…I know your hairygod would be proud!!

you darwiniacs have to do things like this because you cannot defend your faith…er ‘theory’ *smirk*

right4life on January 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM

That feeds right into your previous ignorant comment that science is now atheistic when all along science is and will remain free of any sort of supernatural or magic claims due to the way science operates and what it addresses.

and I’ve already PROVEN it is atheistic…from Miller’s own quote..IN A TEXTBOOK…

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

“Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution,” (- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History 33 (W.W. Norton 1977).)

First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory
of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer
(although one is certainly free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts
of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world.
Every aspect of the wonderful design so admired by natural theologians could
be explained by natural selection…(Mayr, E. (2000). Darwin’s influence on modern thought. Scientific American, 283, 70-83, 81.

Similarly, Douglas Futuyma,
in his widely used college textbook Evolutionary Biology, writes: By coupling undirected,
purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological
or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous (Futuyma 1998, p. 5).

when are you gonna get a clue???

evolution IS ATHEISM..duhhhhh…

right4life on January 10, 2009 at 10:00 AM

right4life
I haven’t made any…

You haven’t made any claims? Laughable.

have you proven your ‘theory’ yet…evolved anything yet??
created a new life form?? no???

Strawman that only a person bereft of understanding of what science is would keep posting such nonsense. So what field of science do you work in again?

more atheist ‘interpretation’ of the bible too funny!! lying for darwin again!! its all ya got…

And now you show your are a coward as well as ignorant. You cannot even address the documented claim of your own xian bible but cower away and post more insults.

oh please this is laughable. you cannot list the sequence of mutations for ANYTHING…

You demands to know what series of mutations led to the human eye. That is impossible to know.

yet you have FAITH that those mutations happened…its not science its faith in your hairygod darwin…laughable.

Keep repeating the Hovind lines all you like.

oh yes the faith in ‘TIME’ please its laughable..

And that would be another Hovind claim you have tried to claim you never made. So that either mean you are ignorant of what you have posted or have lied about it. Which is it?

there you go, see you don’t need ‘time’. you’ve had 150 years of the same old lies…and ya got nothing, zero, zip, nada…

And you still do not understand that what you post does not support your claims no matter how many time you misrepresent it.

I can cite the simplistic and ignorant dismissal you made about the bacteria that evolved to be able to consume nylon.

you claim evolution is ’science’ but you have no facts to back it up…

Again, the evolution of the bacteria. You ignored it and dismissed it due to your ignorance of what evolution is.

just faith…and the hope that ’someday’ you’ll figure it out….amazing.

Not at all. But then again, you cannot understand anything that is not part and parcel of your mythology and related religion. Your closed minded outlook due to that supports just how people can be blinded by their religion.

And keep playing those word games.

first off, there is quite a bit of debate whether it was beneficial or not…

Only to the minds of theists who try to dismiss it. The fact remains that the bacteria was able to take advantage of a new food source that no other bacteria could. To try to claim that such an ability was not beneficial is irrational and dishonest.

and even then, you have a beneficial mutation??? so??

Too funny. Xian apologists claim that there is not such a thing as a beneficial mutation yet when one is cited you simply and simplistically dismiss it.

it is still a bacteria…

And that comment is more proof that you do not understand what evolution states or is. The bacteria evolved. That is a fact.

you need many, many beneficial mutations….

According to whom? You? You do not even know what the TOE is outside of the strawman xian claims of what it is.

but they don’t add up…as I posted earlier, and you were
obviously too stupid to understand…try again…

Yes, they do and your continuing dismissal doesn’t change the fact that you simply cannot understand the TOE or the ramifications of the evolution of the cited bacteria.

since you obviously didn’t understand it the first time…

Actually, you don’t and I will illustrate why.

this study tried to add beneficial mutations together…and notice that study has not been done before…so much for ’science’….

And your ignorance. They were studying RNA.

And note the article date. Nearly five years ago. Where is the followup?

and notice the phrase all significant interactions were antagonistic. thats not good…in other words…an organism can only support so many mutations, then it dies…

And your misrepresentation and selective use of science is proven again. Take the part you ignorantly overlooked:

Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter.

50%. Half. So where is the total failure?

ever hear of Haldane’s dilemma??? try looking that up…..sigh.

Look it up? Sorry, not going to do your job. Your track record on misrepresent source material is bad enough that you need to provide the link.

it basically says the same thing for bacteria.

No, it stated it for the bacteria they were testing. And you also are relying upon one study and/or test. This illustrates more of your layman understanding of science.

One study and/or one test might be good enough for a news story sound bite, but science requires multiple ongoing testing.

now get a clue…mutations do NOT add up. sorry.

Again, according to you, a person who misrepresent what science is.

But, back to the fact that you were too ignorant to understand the ramification of the beneficial mutation of the nylon eating bacteria. In an intellectually dishonest move, you shifted the goal posts from a claim of no beneficial mutation to not one of mutation not adding up.

all you have is FAITH that they do…

Not at all in the manner you mean. I have addressed that hollow claim of yours, but you have ignored that as well in favor of repeating your fallacious claim.

and even if you find one beneficial mutation..

Which we have.

think of the problems of spreading it through a population…

Evidently, not that big of one considering that the bacteria in question survive and thrived.

thats why you do NOT have fossil sequences of transitions,

And that is simply false. We have plenty of examples of transitional forms. We just don’t have ones that the ignorant xian apologist demand. These would be one that are based upon their lack of comprehension of what evolution is. Take for example the transitional fossil of archaeopteryx.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

and you cannot demonstrate evolution in a lab…

And that is yet another fallacious claim based upon your religious faith, lack of knowledge of science and not fact.

http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/historical-contingency-in-evolution-is-demonstrated-in-the-lab/

Historical contingency in evolution is demonstrated in the lab

2008 June 19, Thursday, 18:00 — monado

It was S. J. Gould’s contention that evolution is a contingent process: its path is contingent on historical events, so that if you “re-wound the tape” of evolution and started it again from an earlier point, you would not get exactly the same results.

Well, historical contingency — and macroevolution — have both been demonstrated by Richard Lenski in a long-running laboratory experiment using the bacterium Escherichia coli.

The results were published June 4th in PNAS. In addition, in case irreducible complexity needed another nail in its coffin, the experiements demonstrate the accumulation of mutations over years that result in a novel change requiring more than one step.

Gene Splicer on January 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM

And for part 2.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens

So, your claim that evolution has never been demonstrated in the lab is simply erroneous and ignorant of some of the recent new on the subject.

Odd for one claiming to be a scientist.

and you have to appeal to a FAITH IN TIME to support evolution.

And posting more Hovind claims (you know, the ones you claimed you never made) doesn’t change the fact that you misrepresent what the TOE is or how it is viewed.

if it was ’science’ you’d be able to give me those sequences of mutations…that you cannot, says it all….

No, it simply means that you can made irrational demands. Again, you demanded to know the sequence of mutations that led to the human eye. Even if we were able to replicate the development of the eye in a lab right now, short of going back in time, we would never be able to cite the exact sequence of mutations and evolutionary steps. So again, your demands are simply irrational.

oh I looked up Hovind…he was convicted of TAX crimes…yeah that TOTALLY discredits creationism!! Duhhhhh

And you overlook the painful fact that he was a devout and quite public xian preaching the facts and virtues of his god. So it appears that Hovind failed to heed the command found in the xian bible that he should have rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Then there is the whole topic of where were his morals in not paying taxes, employee taxes I believe, that his employees rely upon for SS and such.

You conveniently avoided that facet of the point.

since you spout the racist theory of that proven RACIST DARINW and WATSON..you are a RACIST!!

So says the closed minded little xian apologists. I’m shocked it took you this long to make that accusation due to your illustrated simplistic and limited conversational ability.

But your resorting to calling me a racist in order to defend a person you claimed you never heard about? And especially after using so many of his claims?

So if Hovind was unknown to you and means nothing to you, why resort to now calling me a racists?

Again, your actions do not support your claims.

oh and as far as sternberg…just proves what fascist little brown-shirt thugs you darwiniacs are…

And just goes to show how fact Godwin’s law is not only proven but reached by a closed minded xian like you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

smearing and lying for darwin…I know your hairygod would be proud!!

And how limited your ability to rationally think and follow a story, or the facts, is. So what was the outcome of this? Odd how you don’t post it.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/the_house_government_reform_su.html

The House Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources has issued its official report on the investigation into the harassment and discrimination against biologist Dr. Richard Sternberg. (for more background see here). The congressional report bluntly states: The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Posted here is the Executive Summary of the report. The full report can be downloaded here, and the appendix can be downloaded here.

So, those who violated his free speech were found guilty of such. Again, very odd how you forget to mention that this led to a finding in his favor and protection for others.

you darwiniacs have to do things like this because you cannot defend your faith…er ‘theory’ *smirk*

And xians like you have to play fast and loose with the truth in order to deny the facts of science. And again, you failed to mention that those who violated his free speech were dealt with. I wonder why that was?

and I’ve already PROVEN it is atheistic…

No, you just thing that science need to include your god and or the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design. Science does not and cannot by its very nature and function dela with the supernatural and/or magic.

Citing a personal opinion is not a universal fact nor proof of your claim. Again, did the author know Dawin? No. So his claim is his opinion.

when are you gonna get a clue???

When are you going to show any sign of intellectual honest or character?

evolution IS ATHEISM..duhhhhh…

No, evolution is a scientific theory. Science is secular by nature. Again, it cannot address the supernatural or magical. You may not like that fact, but your constant rally against that fact shows how you simply do not understand science.

And again, it is not just evolution that disagrees with your xian bible. Heliocentric solar system is another that disagrees with it. The church even executed people for supporting it over a geocentric solar system as, they claims, was a fact claimed by the xian bible. Ever hear of Giordano Bruno? Burned at the stake by the church for supporting the fact of heliocentric solar system over the biblical “fact” of a geocentric one.

So what was the field of science you work in again?

And we still have your dismissal of the human/chimp chromosome comparison. Odd thing that.

Gene Splicer on January 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM

right4life

In closing, you can call people liars, trash or whatever juvenile little name you can think of, but in the end, you admitted, via your claims, that in the future you look forward to seeing people tortured by your god.

You can call it justice all you like or anything else you like, but the fact remains that you are simply a sick, twisted and hate-filled little religious zealot.

And that is to be pitied.

Rant all you like, but you still only prove my point, but at least your on-line reputation was accurate.

Gene Splicer on January 11, 2009 at 4:57 PM

And yet another athiest’s argument distilled to every atheist’s argument: “There’s no such thing as God, Stupidhead!”

Actually it was a lengthy well-constructed argument which you completely ignored and zeroed in on the last sentence which no doubt stung your fragile ego and hence proved my point that thinking does hurt a typical theists’ head.

Otherwise you would’ve had something more constructive to say than cry about being slighted by the big bad atheist. The only one that’s done any ‘distilling’ is you.

You’ve got your religion, we’ve got our religion, why not live and let live? Or do you atheists object to coexistence because keeping your ever roaring, self agrandizing, pieholes shut for five seconds hurt too much? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.

SuperCool on January 7, 2009 at 4:39 AM

Haha, Atheism isn’t a religion, its a philosophical position that denies the assertion of theists. Just as being a non-believer of unicorns would be.

And I’d be more than happy to let people pray to whatever figment of their imagination they like, but the trouble is that theists can’t keep their views to themselves and want to infringe on my secular rights and freedoms in accordance with their Iron Age myths and force our schools, institutions, healthcare system to adopt their beliefs on abortion, stem-cell research, evolution, etc.

So really you have it backwards, its believers that-as you said-can’t keep their “ever roaring, self agrandizing, pieholes shut for five seconds” (ie-keep their beliefs to themselves). Hence your beliefs become my problem whether I like it or not-just like the muslims who call us evil infidels that need to be converted or killed for not following Islam.

Christianity is Islam’s obnoxious, but less violent cousin. I’m under no illusions, if Christians got their way, we’d be living in a backwards theocratic state much as the muslim world is right now and atheists would be killed or jailed for their heresy and blasphemy. Its too bad that while you theists can recognize Islam is a fascist totalitarian religion, you’re unable to see that yours isn’t much different.

As for rhetoric, that’s all you theists offer since you cannot provide any evidence for the existence of your imaginary friends apart from a 2000 year old man-made text full of desert fairy tales and a slave morality.

thinkagain on January 11, 2009 at 6:01 PM

thinkagain on January 11, 2009 at 6:01 PM

I thought I’d share some interesting examples of your jealous perfect all-knowing god who in his divine holy word and infinite wisdom incites murder/genocide, rape and enslaving people (source: evilbible.com):

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

“What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.” (site quote)

More Rape and Baby Killing

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

Mass Murder

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

How to buy & treat a slave:
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the 7th year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom

[Exodus 21:1] … “When a man sells his daughter as a slave…” [Exodus 21:7]
“If a male or female slave is beaten and dies, the owner must be punished. If the slave recovers after a couple of days, however, then the owner should not be punished, since the slave is the owner’s property.” [Exodus 21:20]

From the ten commandments:
“Do not make idols of any kind, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not share your affection with any other God! I do not leave unpunished the sins of those who hate me, but I punish the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generations…” [Exodus 20:4]

Of course I’ve barely scratched the surface, there’s much more lunacy I can dredge up from this primitive barbaric text which you and the muslims (Islam is a bastardization of judaism/christianity/paganism) consider to be sent from the creator of the universe.

While I’m at it, here’s some other quotes:

“When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.”- Robert Pirsig

“Just like the Old Testament, the “New” one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right.” … “Religion comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). The Aztecs had to tear open a human chest cavity every day just to make sure that the sun would rise… How many needless assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to “fit” with the revealed words of ancient man-made deities?
God did not create man in his own image. Evidently, it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization. Past and present religious atrocities have occurred not because we are evil, but because it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partly rational.
Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did –and yet believers still claim to know. Not just to know, but to know everything . Not just to know God exists, but also to know what “he” demands of us–from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality [...] One faction–itself composed of warring factions–has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude “belief” from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.” [taken from Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything]

thinkagain on January 12, 2009 at 2:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4