Tuesday, January 3, 2012

University of Toronto Conference: The Wise Scientist

The Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Toronto is hosting a conference this summer entitled “The Wise Scientist: Historical and Philosophical Reflections on the Place of Wisdom in Science” and their first suggested topic is: “Case studies which highlight particularly wise (or spectacularly unwise) scientists.” I think I have an idea. Here is my abstract:

In 1859 Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution which stated that the species originated spontaneously. From whatever initial conditions existed in the early earth, millions upon millions of species arose by themselves. Indeed, from biochemistry to anatomy, the entire biological world arose on its own. Not surprisingly the theory was met with a degree of skepticism from some scientists. But Darwin’s idea was greeted by theologians and soon was hailed as an undisputable fact. In spite of its heroic claims and a long series of failed predictions, the theory of evolution became entrenched orthodoxy in the twentieth century. As evolutionist Ernst Mayr explained, the fact of evolution is so overwhelmingly established that it would be irrational to call it a theory. Even consciousness, evolutionists insist, is merely an emergent result of the seemingly limitless complexity which spontaneously arose.

But evolutionary thinking did not begin with Darwin and is not limited to biology. The theory that the world arose by itself traces back to antiquity, and in modern times was promoted by cosmologists centuries before Darwin. As Kant explained, a strictly naturalistic origins was based on “incontrovertible principles” which left no doubt of the conclusion. Recently the cover of the venerable Scientific American informed its loyal readers that “Infinite Earths in Parallel Universes Really Exist” and the internationally renown physicist Stephen Hawking proclaimed that even the universe arose on its own.

It would be difficult to overstate the sheer intellectual strength and academic credentials of these leading evolutionists. They are the best and the brightest the world has to offer. Similarly, it would be difficult to overstate the enormous chasm that separates their dogmatic truth claims and reality. While evolutionary theories have been called unwise, evolutionary thinking is undoubtedly the most “spectacularly unwise” movement in history. It would be difficult to imagine a more unlikely science proclaimed with more certainty. Brilliance and intelligence are not necessarily accompanied by wisdom.

Think they will accept it? Religion drives science, and it matters.

159 comments:

  1. No. And nor should they. Since it is nonsense. You cannot substantiate any of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, the Toronto meeting appears to be a genuine conference for scholars, not a tent revival for pseudoscientists.

    The Northwest Creation Conference, run by Creation Science Ministries, would probably be happy to have your "paper", such as it is.

    Or you could always submit it to a creationist vanity journal, like PSCID. Heck, PSCID could get one of their deceased "Fellows" to review it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good points here.
    Add some thoughts.

    First we think like God. We do not think with the natural worlds brain.
    Our thinking is unrelated to our brain save in instinct, like animals, or our memory.

    Then the bible is clear that human intelligence is divided up by Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge.
    Everything fits in these three groups.

    So when its claimed that people, scientists etc, are very intelligent it means nothing.

    Do they simply have great knowledge. Great understanding. Great wisdom.

    I easily dismiss high degreed people if i smell they only have great knowledge.
    Understanding also can be discovered but is still limited by the lack of understanding.
    Wisdom is very different. It is the insight and use of the two previous things.

    Evolutionism is not based or maintained by wisdom.
    just people with knowledge in nature things.
    Then speculations on understanding how nature in origin issues works.
    yet they don't prove their claimed understanding works.
    Yet if wisdom was around then they would be more critical and open to criticism of ideas about past and gone events and processes unobserved.

    They can't IMAGINE or wisdom any other ideas as potential options for biological data found.

    No wisdom need be seen until proven.

    Wisdom is more then a hunch and so Darwin isn't proved yet to have had wisdom.
    Many people have in other subjects in science.

    I respect Stephen Hawkings for dealing with his disease very well and a example but I don't see why he is any more then a person with great knowledge in his field or perhaps some understanding of certain matters.
    I don't see him as having discovered, patented, anything that a kid would read in a book of science winners a century from now.

    I don't see why his opinions matter more then others.
    Bring me a actual achiever in origin fields and then prove his case.

    Evolution rests on mere acceptence of old ideas. Not evidence from a methodology that is careful about conclusions or what was called science.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wha...? Oh I see, it's a haiku, right? You're off by just a few syllables, though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robert Byers -

    Bravo. That was a masterpiece of spin.

    "If someone is intelligent and educated, we shouldn't listen to them because what they are saying is probably stupid."

    I never cease to be amazed at the lengths religious people will go to to say that black is white, intelligence is stupid and faith is rational. And of course, Cornelius' speciality, science is religion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent article Dr. Hunter,,,, Of related note you may appreciate this recent article:

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011
    Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
    In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness

    further note:

    The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon
    * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
    * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
    * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
    * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.
    --- The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video
    http://vimeo.com/34468027

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009
    Excerpt Page 12: Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents.,,, Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf

    Super Massive Blackholes - The neo-Darwinians ultimate ‘god of entropic randomness’ which can create all things (that is if you are a 'true believer' in Darwin)
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fxhJEGNeEQ_sn4ngQWmeBt1YuyOs8AQcUrzBRo7wISw/edit?hl=en_US

    “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”
    Roger Penrose - How Special Was The Big Bang?

    song:

    Heather Williams – Hallelujah – Lyrics
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2uM0L3Y1A

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius,
    Its a bit long for an abstract. You should probably use most of this in your introduction. Also, if you are submitting against the first topic you should focus your discussion more on Darwin and leave out the nameless "cosmologists centuries before Darwin" or theologians back to "antiquity." Of course, there will be ample room to discuss how his insight affected the logic of Hawkins etc. Make sure you substantiate all claims, like Ritchie said. If and when the Darwin clerics dismiss it out of hand, be sure to post the full text and reviews so we can all see their dishonesty. Good Luck.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Back in 2005 origin of life researchers were to receive $1 million annually from Harvard over the next few years.

    In David R. Liu’s statement in the New York Times (Aug 15, 2005) says,

    “My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention,” said this professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard."

    Here we are in 2012, and my question to Mr Liu, is after millions of dollars, where's your written scientific procedure on the "very simple series of logical events" that took place?

    Filming a cockroach running on a treadmill has more merit that this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. More unwise science

    A report card for AGW could go something like this...

    Temperatures are below NASA's Hansen’s zero emissions after 2000 Scenario!

    Global temperatures are declining this century

    Sea level has been declining for several years, and is lower now than it was in 2003

    Arctic ice extent and area is the highest for the date since 2005

    Temperatures in western Greenland last year were the coldest since 1996

    Temperatures in Antarctica have been declining for 30 years

    Antarctic ice has been increasing for 30 years
    Winter snow extent is increasing, and has been near record highs in recent years

    Temperatures in Texas show no increase since 1895

    Drought in Australia is at historic lows

    Drought in the US is well below the mean

    Severe tornadoes are on the decline in the US

    US hurricane strikes are on the decline

    Intense hurricanes are on the decline

    Polar Bear populations have tripled

    Yellowstone Grizzly Bear populations have tripled

    USHCN raw thermometer data shows that the US has been cooling since 1895

    The ten deadliest floods in history all occurred with CO2 below 350 ppm

    The deadliest US hurricane, the most powerful US hurricane, and the deadliest US tornado all occurred with CO2 below 350 ppm

    ReplyDelete
  10. How's the letter writing campaign to all the online biology dictionaries to get them to correct their definition of "junk DNA" going?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tedford the idiots said...

    More unwise science


    More Tedford the idiot.

    Really Tedford, you shouldn't get your "science" from reading National Inquirer headlines at the supermarket.

    Most of those are non-sequiturs, a few are outright lies. But you're an idiot so you swallow everything you read from crank sites with zero thought or research.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Venture Free said...

    Neal Tedford

    [citation needed]


    The idiot just C&Ped a big "Gish Gallop" style laundry list of crap from this wingnut AGW denier site

    Global warming report card

    It's the usual mixture of cherry-picked data, dishonest distortions and misrepresentations of actual scientific findings, and outright lies.

    Right up Tedford's alley in other words.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Venture Free,

    link is http://www.real-science.com/2012-global-warming-report-card

    If something is inaccurate, by all means provide solid evidence to the contrary. Please be specific and cite your source. The report card is benchmarked as of Jan 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  14. December 2007 prediction quoted by the evolution and AGW supporting National Geographic...

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html


    "This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

    That prediction, Mr Liu's written procedure on the very simple series of logical events and $1.75 will buy you a cold Coca-Coca.

    ReplyDelete
  15. NO artic warming for the last seven years. Just what the AGW folks predicted all along.

    http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

    ReplyDelete
  16. Neal Tedford said...

    NO artic warming for the last seven years. Just what the AGW folks predicted all along.

    http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt


    Just to show you what an idiot Tedford is:

    The data in the link he provided is a cherry picked set that only shows a short term Lower Troposphere (LTL) variation for one specific region of the arctic.

    The combined long term trend for the entire planet TLT is 0.6 deg.C rise in the last 30 years.

    decadal trends in MSU/AMSU channel TLT:

    Tedford approaches AGW just like he approaches ToE. He doesn't want it to be true, so he swallows uncritically any small bit of cherry-picked data from politically motivated charlatans to cling to his anti-science delusions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Neal Tedford is a dope

    If something is inaccurate, by all means provide solid evidence to the contrary. Please be specific and cite your source.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The site is called Real Science? That's freakin' hilarious!!! Talk about a name pulled straight out of a George Orwell novel.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Venture Free said...

    The site is called Real Science? That's freakin' hilarious!!! Talk about a name pulled straight out of a George Orwell novel.


    It's run by a climate change denier crank using the pseudonym "Steve Goddard". According to the "about me" section the guy is an electrical engineer (surprise!) with zero scientific training in climatology.

    Apparently some of Godddard's stuff is so bad even uber-climate-change skeptic Anthony Watts had to call him on it.

    New Lows: Sea Ice and “Steven Goddard” credibility

    But to Tedford he's a visionary.

    ReplyDelete
  20. CHunter wrote:
    While evolutionary theories have been called unwise, evolutionary thinking is undoubtedly the most “spectacularly unwise” movement in history. It would be difficult to imagine a more unlikely science proclaimed with more certainty. Brilliance and intelligence are not necessarily accompanied by wisdom.
    --------------------------------------------
    I have often said 'evolution' is by far the worst idea , even more than the people that think the earth is flat."Evolution' is not a theory it is only a hypotheses.( and it doesn't deserve that)
    And wisdom is more than knowledge and ,it is the actions that shows one is wise.
    You can be extremely intelligent ( what ever that means)and be very unwise. You can have ordinary or average intelligence and be very wise.


    1 Corinthians 1:19-20
    Amplified Bible (AMP)
    19For it is written, I will baffle and render useless and destroy the learning of the learned and the philosophy of the philosophers and the cleverness of the clever and the discernment of the discerning; I will frustrate and nullify [them] and bring [them] to nothing.
    20Where is the wise man (the philosopher)? Where is the scribe (the scholar)? Where is the investigator (the logician, the debater) of this present time and age? Has not God shown up the nonsense and the folly of this world's wisdom?

    This is true today.

    http://patternsofcreation.weebly.com/

    ReplyDelete
  21. Junk science supporters/evolutionists/ AGWer's respond with typical name calling and then don't give contrary evidence to a single item on the report card.

    No one is denying that the earth's temperature doesn't vary... at times such as the 900-1200 AD warming or the little ice age in the middle ages or even great ice ages of the past. Leif Erickson wasn't driving an SUV in a much warmer Greenland.

    What is denied is that AGWer's have a settled case that manmade CO2 emissions are driving a significant long term increase in global temps. Even if half a degree is accurate (and that's questionable given urban heat influence and the practice of manipulating and changing recorded temperatures from the past 100 years, climategate 1 and climategate 2, etc, etc), the case for CO2 causing the warming is ungrounded. The political agenda machine has been weaved into climate research and the result is completely untrustworthy.

    AGWer predictions have all been wrong. They haven't reached the level of deception of evolutionists, but they are certainly trying.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Neal Tedford said...

    Junk science supporters/evolutionists/ AGWer's respond with typical name calling and then don't give contrary evidence to a single item on the report card.


    I provide clear evidence of where your wingnut "Steve Goddard" source clearly cherry-picked some short term local data to try and refute a clear global long term trend.

    But you're an idiot with zero critical thinking skills. You don't even understand when your wingnut sources are feeding you swill.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tedford the idiot said...

    Junk science supporters/evolutionists/ AGWer's respond with typical name calling and then don't give contrary evidence to a single item on the report card


    Here's another steaming pile of crap from your wingnut source that's a flat out lie:

    Wingnut: "Sea level has been declining for several years, and is lower now than it was in 2003"

    In actuality, sea levels have risen almost 60mm since 1993, and almost 30mm since 2003.

    From the U. of Colorado Sea Level Research Group:

    "Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously calibrated against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal and other variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality"

    U. of Colorado Sea Level Research Group:

    2011_rel4: Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed)

    You'll always be an idiot Tedford as long as you refuse to think.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You'll always be an idiot Tedford as long as you refuse to think.

    Why make a change, when it's so much easier to stay the same?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Neal Tedford: NO artic warming for the last seven years. Just what the AGW folks predicted all along.

    Neal, it's getting harder and harder to watch you spew nonsense. Could you stop for a moment and learn something before continuing? You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Seven years is too short a period to spot a trend. Short-term natural factors dominate on such short time scales. You have to look at long-term averages. Decades and longer. It's easy to pick and choose a few years during which the earth is either rapidly cooling or rapidly warming. Such fluctuations mean little.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thorton: "It's the usual mixture of cherry-picked data, dishonest distortions and misrepresentations of actual scientific findings, and outright lies."

    Are we talking about Al Gore again??

    Please tell me you DARWidiots don't believe in man-made Global Warming??

    ReplyDelete
  29. UR, please tell me you're locked up in a rubber room where you belong.

    By the way, I doubt that anyone believes "in" anthropogenic global warming. I know I don't. However, smart, educated, reality-based, rationally thinking people ACCEPT that reckless, wasteful, greedy, selfish, arrogant humans with no consideration of the future are causing all kinds of severe damage to our planet and atmosphere, including detrimental climate change, and that it's way past time to do something about it.

    I'm starting to rethink what I said about you leaving.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Are we talking about Al Gore again??

    Um, no. I don't think anyone mentioned him until your comment.

    It seems to me that most anti-science people are incapable of addressing an idea on its own. Instead you always tie it to a person. Evolution = Darwin. Anthropogenic Global Warming = Al Gore.

    Here's my hypothesis. An idea is neutral and so must stand or fall on its own merits. A person is an adversary and must be "defeated" at all costs. By making the debate about a person instead of an idea you give yourself license to ignore anything that contradicts your own position, since it is irrelevant to the true discussion, i.e. the vanquishing of your opponent. Sound about right?

    ReplyDelete
  31. VF -

    You might be onto something there.

    Or perhaps just plain smeer: tie an idea to a person and then discredit that person (with barely-relevant stuff, doesn't really matter) and thus the idea can be dismissed.

    Darwin = Angry at God for his daughter dying. Another angry atheist. Therefore (non-sequitur alert) ToE is rubbish.

    Al Gore = Democrat/Meat controversy. Therefore (non-sequitur alert) Climate Change is rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ritchie said...

    VF -

    You might be onto something there.

    Or perhaps just plain smeer: tie an idea to a person and then discredit that person (with barely-relevant stuff, doesn't really matter) and thus the idea can be dismissed.

    Darwin = Angry at God for his daughter dying. Another angry atheist. Therefore (non-sequitur alert) ToE is rubbish.

    Al Gore = Democrat/Meat controversy. Therefore (non-sequitur alert) Climate Change is rubbish.


    It's even simple than that. Religious people like UR and PaV don't understand argument from evidence. They only recognize argument from authority. Their whole understanding of 'truth' in life is based on authority - the 'truth' dictated by their Bible. When they were kids the local church Reverend was the authority. They've never learned to think for themselves, only listen to authority.

    Now when they stumble into the scientific world they assume the same rules apply. They just don't get that science is evidence-based, and that conclusions can be changed based on the introduction of new evidence. Since they get their 'truth' from authority then we must too. So they identify the 'authority' they think dictates our scientific truth - Darwin, Gore, etc - and attack them. The IDCers think if they can discredit the authority then everything else with the science must be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  33. AGWer's predictions about sea level rise have been hugely exaggerated. What to do? Manipulate the data!

    http://heartland.org/policy-documents/3-sinking-under-their-false-sea-level-predictions-alarmists-change-data


    And then ignore huge sea level rise over the past thousands of years before SUV's were spewing C02 emissions.

    Climate report card still gives AGWer's an F in science.

    It is ironic that evolutionists who tout change over time are blind to immense climate changes in the history of the earth yet are so quick to jump on a blip of climate variation to reorganize the whole world economy to enrich AGWer pockets.

    Ritchie, when pictures of polar bears floating on ice in the sea are used as poster ads to turn emotions towards AGW, something is very wrong with the science and the motives of its supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Neal Tedford -

    Ritchie, when pictures of polar bears floating on ice in the sea are used as poster ads to turn emotions towards AGW, something is very wrong with the science and the motives of its supporters.

    Why? What, exactly, is wrong?

    Firstly, it is the media who promote images like that. They are not the people doing the science - the scientists are. Now you might be wanting to condemn anyone asserting climate change, in whatever capacity, but make sure sure you do not confuse who is doing what. Popular images in the media reflect not at all on the scientists putting in the hard graft.

    Secondly, polar bears are indeed in peril from climate change. To copy and paste:

    Polar bears are classed as vulnerable by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and listed as a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act.
    ...
    According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions.


    http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm

    They are emotive for many people, and their plight is easily recognisable. All in all they seem rather a good poster-child for climate change.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Tedford the idiot said...

    AGWer's predictions about sea level rise have been hugely exaggerated. What to do? Manipulate the data!

    And then ignore huge sea level rise over the past thousands of years before SUV's were spewing C02 emissions.


    Great job there idiot. In two consecutive sentences you argued that 1) sea level isn't rising because the data is fraudulent, and 2) sea level is rising but that we shouldn't be concerned because the sea was higher thousands of years before.

    Tell me idiot, how many humans lived in modern cities with complex infrastructures on flat low-lying coastal lands thousands of years ago? The number today is over 2 billion.

    I notice you didn't have any comments on the lies your "Steve Goddard report card" source was caught in either.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ritchie said: "Or perhaps just plain smeer: tie an idea to a person and then discredit that person (with barely-relevant stuff, doesn't really matter) and thus the idea can be dismissed."

    Why stop there? Why not tie an idea to a stereotype of say, a religion, and then discredit the idea by poking fun at the religion.

    Look in the mirror, DARWidiot!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Half wit: "However, smart, educated, reality-based, rationally thinking people ACCEPT that reckless, wasteful, greedy, selfish, arrogant humans with no consideration of the future are causing all kinds of severe damage to our planet and atmosphere, including detrimental climate change, and that it's way past time to do something about it."

    What kind of car do you drive? I think talking about carbon footprint is stupid but I have personally taken steps to reduce my energy use and waste. I also believe in peak oil and no that we need to do something NOW for our kids and grandkids to have a future. Just becasue I don't buy the global warming hogwash doesn't mean I am not concerned with taking care of the planet. Christianity calls us to be repsonsible with the planet.

    There is a great documentary, produced by the BBC of all peeps, on the sham of global warming. It has to do with a communist agenda (go figure atheists would jump up and down in support of it) and the transfer of wealth from our FREE enterprise system to the governments, NOT THE PEOPLE, of the less fortunate countries. There are also folks that don't answer to a Higher Power milking the concept for all the money than can wring out of it.

    You guys love throwing anecdotal evidence out there so here is some for you. This winter is the coldest winter we have experienced in Phoenix since I moved here in 1989. I'm sure your theory will fill in the "gaps" for that phenomenom as well just like your other lame theory does.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

    ReplyDelete
  38. Venture Free: "It seems to me that most anti-science people are incapable of addressing an idea on its own."

    Love it!!! Anyone that disagrees with you is anti-science. You guys are so transparent and pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thorton: "They only recognize argument from authority. Their whole understanding of 'truth' in life is based on authority - the 'truth' dictated by their Bible. When they were kids the local church Reverend was the authority. They've never learned to think for themselves, only listen to authority."

    Darwiner, Please!! I'm getting my waders out. Evolutionary thought is the current authority. Been to an American Universit lately??? You are the ones that can't think for yourself, brainwashed by the educational "one note" educational institutions in this country that don't allow their precious theory to be questioned, or firing people when they do. Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I remeber a whjile back the big problem was acid rain. All the trees and frogs where dying. Then the problem was depletion of the ozone layer. Llamas where going blind. We were all going to die of skin cancer. What hsppened with that?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ritchie: "Firstly, it is the media who promote images like that. They are not the people doing the science - the scientists are."

    The scientists are just tools (hey, kind of like you :)) in a much bigger political game. You are a fool if you can't see that or choose to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Half Wit, Twitchie, and Scorton, do you guys shop at Walmart? Do you buy Chinese-made goods? All your stupid other "ism" has done is shift the waste and pollution out of our country to someone elses. You rape and destroy their environment, and devalue their human beings for cheap labor, in order to churn out scores and scores of cheap goods. Which is great for you, since you have a union make sure you are earning way more than you should and you don't have to look at that big stack rising above your neighborhood. Do you know that for the Olympics they had to shut manufacturing down for 2 weeks just so visitors could see the sun?!?!?!?

    Environmentalists are like Christians, you don't have to look too long and hard before you find serious hypocritical behaviour. Or in Thorton's case, HIPPOcritical behaviour... Drop that Cheeto, man!!!

    ReplyDelete
  44. UR -

    Why stop there? Why not tie an idea to a stereotype of say, a religion, and then discredit the idea by poking fun at the religion.

    Because there is no need to. A scientific debate is one in which ideas are judged on their own merits. Which for Creationism/ID is nothing at all.

    There is a great documentary, produced by the BBC of all peeps, on the sham of global warming.

    Really? Can you give me a link? Or even just a title. I find this surprising since the BBC are generally behind the climate change scientists.

    You guys love throwing anecdotal evidence out there so here is some for you. This winter is the coldest winter we have experienced in Phoenix since I moved here in 1989. I'm sure your theory will fill in the "gaps" for that phenomenom as well just like your other lame theory does.

    D'oh.

    Climate change does not just mean the planet gets hotter. That's why it was renamed from 'global warming' to 'climate change' to more accurately encompass the effects.

    And the mere fact that that it was the coldest in decades should tell you the climate is indeed changing. That is a worrying sign. A comforting sign would be if we didn't break these records for hottest, coldest, wettest, driest, summer/winter, or whatever. If the climate were stable then we shouldn't keep breaking these records. But we consistently do - with alarming regularity.

    The scientists are just tools (hey, kind of like you :)) in a much bigger political game. You are a fool if you can't see that or choose to ignore it.

    I realise you and others might enjoy exchanging cheap, personal insults, but I am of the school that likes to debate without them if you wouldn't mind.

    Environmentalists are like Christians, you don't have to look too long and hard before you find serious hypocritical behaviour.

    This is a fallacy.

    For one thing, a hypocrite is not automatically wrong. Imagine we were both very fat. I might tell you you were fat one day. You might take offense and point out I was a hypocrite. But that wouldn't make me wrong. My words would still be true.

    Secondly, you've fallen straight into the trap Venture Free outlined above. Climate change? Advocated by hypocrits! (non-sequitur alert) No need to objectively consider it.

    Thirdly, you could always judge someone as a hypocrite when it comes to climate change. Because there is always more they could do to help. It's like a diet - you can always be healthier. So your accusations ring hollow anyway. For the record, I am very conscious about things like my carbon footprint. Not that I expect that means very much to you...

    ReplyDelete
  45. natschuster said...

    I remeber a whjile back the big problem was acid rain. All the trees and frogs where dying. Then the problem was depletion of the ozone layer. Llamas where going blind. We were all going to die of skin cancer. What hsppened with that?


    What happened that science clearly identified the problem, and governments around the world took steps to drastically reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere. New antipollution rules and regulations were put in place, and were largely successful. SO2 levels have dropped by over 70% from the late 1970's, with a corresponding large drop in acid rain.

    Science. It works, bitches!

    ReplyDelete
  46. There is a great documentary, produced by the BBC of all peeps, on the sham of global warming.

    Really? Can you give me a link? Or even just a title. I find this surprising since the BBC are generally behind the climate change scientists.


    Youtube link was in the previous post...

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ritchie: "And the mere fact that that it was the coldest in decades should tell you the climate is indeed changing."

    Yeah, it tends to do that. We just came out of an ice age 10,000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ritchie: "Thirdly, you could always judge someone as a hypocrite when it comes to climate change. Because there is always more they could do to help. It's like a diet - you can always be healthier. So your accusations ring hollow anyway. For the record, I am very conscious about things like my carbon footprint. Not that I expect that means very much to you... "

    Sorry for the insult. I was just lumping you in with Half Truth and Scornton. It is more for comedic relief but I will respectively not do it to you again.

    Please don't misconstrue what I am saying. I am very PRO taking care of the earth. I just hate that stupid phrase "carbon footprint". I mean, heck, we are made of carbon and we expel carbon dioxide for goodness sake!!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ritchie, just a sample of polar bear misinformation.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/fake-photo-used-in-science-article.html

    For your information, polar bears have no problem swimming vast distances in search of food. They'll certainly not got stranded on an iceberg! That's an Inconvenient Truth.

    http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/polarbears/pbadaptations.html

    ReplyDelete
  50. Tedford the idiot said...

    Ritchie, just a sample of polar bear misinformation.


    Hey idiot, the article the original photo appeared in wasn't about polar bears. It was about attacks on the solid science supporting the conclusion of climate change by idiots like you. Here's the whole thing

    Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

    When the original photo was discovered to be a collage, the editors admitted the mistake and replaced it with a real photo showing almost exactly the same thing - polar bears on an isolated ice floe.

    Correction: a note on this image

    "Correction

    Due to an editorial error, the original image associated with this Letter was not a photograph but a collage. The image was selected by the editors, and it was a mistake to have used it. The original image has been replaced in the online HTML and PDF versions of the article with an unaltered photograph from National Geographic."

    So no great conspiracy / fraud / coverup there idiot. Just a simple human mistake that was corrected.

    ReplyDelete
  51. For those who missed the link above, the link to "The Great Global Warming Swindle"...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

    Ritchie, I would be interested to know your tak on this. Numerous sites popped up to rebut it. Funny thing about the internet, it is all Relativism. Also, unlike printed books, information is easily manipulated. My guess is Truth will cease to exists as volumes of works are moved into electronic format and destroyed.

    Most people would deny the United States is a Christian nation. Funny how the revisionist have been successful in a huge coverup. Most people don't know that Christian church services were held in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES up until 1868 and Christian church services were even held in the US Supreme Court chambers!!!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ultimate Reality said...

    Most people would deny the United States is a Christian nation. Funny how the revisionist have been successful in a huge coverup. Most people don't know that Christian church services were held in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES up until 1868 and Christian church services were even held in the US Supreme Court chambers!!!


    Your ignorance the U.S. form of government is abysmal. The fact that some of the founding fathers were Christian does not make the U.S. a Christian nation any more than Sandy Koufax made the Dodgers a Jewish baseball team.

    Technically the U.S. is a republic; a system where people chose representatives who then make policy decisions on their behalf. In popular usage it is referred to as a democracy, meaning the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power.

    It is most definitely not a theocracy, no matter how much you Religious Fundies fantasize it to be.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Are you denying they worshipped in the House and Supreme Court????

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ultimate Reality said...

    Are you denying they worshipped in the House and Supreme Court????


    Reading comprehension just isn't your strong suit, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I guess reading wasn't your strong suit either First, a simple yes or no would suffice. But, ah, Scorton, you know that the second you said you were denying it, I would hit you with some hard evidence that would make you look totally stupid as usual. So you just scurry away from the hard facts like always, sticking your head in the sand like an Ostrich.

    Second, I did not claim the US was a Theocracy fat boy. I said it was a Christian nation, i.e., it was founded on Christian principles by mostly Christian men and WAS steeped in Christian tradition before the early 1900's when the whiny PC movement started and the attempt to irradicate Christianity, AND HISTORY, from the US Government began.

    What does this have to do with this post? Everything. I am just giving an example of what can happen when people succumb to lies like Global Warming and buy it hook, line and sinker, with any concept of TRUTH being totally absent from their empty skulls. Reminiscing about another comment you made, I'm sure you have it on good AUTHORITY that it is all true.

    ReplyDelete
  57. UR -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

    Ritchie, I would be interested to know your tak on this. Numerous sites popped up to rebut it.


    Well firstly this was not broadcast by the BBC (I'm a Brit). It was broadcast by Channel4. They generally like to broadcast controversial documentaries in the name of 'cutting edge journalism' and they broadcast this in the spirit of 'giving every side a voice'. And they also got absolutely slammed for it. Channel 4 even had to make a prime-time apology "because it misled interviewees and distorted the editing of their contributions."

    It is also interesting to note exactly WHO complained. This includes the IPCC (perhas not surprising since they were targeted in it), the British Antarctic Survey, David Miliband (then the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs), the Royal Society, the British media regulator Ofcom, a letter of official complaint signed by 37 British scientists, and two of the films own interviewees, Carl Wunsch and Eigil Friis-Christensen, claiming they were mispresented. Carl Wunsch, by the way, is the only scientist in the film whose findings have not been professionally debunked - and he was furious at the way the film portrayed him.

    These are not mere ignorant, uniformed lay people raging because their pet idea is being rationally refuted. These are exactly the people who should be upset if the film was pseudo-scientific propaganda.

    Yeah, it tends to do that. We just came out of an ice age 10,000 years ago.

    Yes, true. I am not so dense as to believe climates don't change at all over long periods. But that is no reason to suppose we are not, at the very least, speeding up the process, perhaps even adding further complications and environmental dangers too.

    Sorry for the insult. I was just lumping you in with Half Truth and Scornton. It is more for comedic relief but I will respectively not do it to you again.

    Thank you.

    Please don't misconstrue what I am saying. I am very PRO taking care of the earth. I just hate that stupid phrase "carbon footprint". I mean, heck, we are made of carbon and we expel carbon dioxide for goodness sake!!

    I see. But if you are 'pro taking-care-of-the-Earth', then what issues do you have with the Climate Change movement, exactly? Do you imagine them to be doing any HARM?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Neal -

    Ritchie, just a sample of polar bear misinformation.

    As Thornton pointed out, what exactly is the 'misinformation' here? The picture was actually a collage? Big Whoop. What's the problem, exactly?

    For your information, polar bears have no problem swimming vast distances in search of food. They'll certainly not got stranded on an iceberg! That's an Inconvenient Truth.

    Yes,. I know that perfectly well, thanks. The problem is not 'Oh poor stranded polar bear, how ever will they get off that iceflow?' The problem is that polar bears need the iceflows to hunt for seals in the summer months. The need to feed their cubs, and build up enough fat reserves for their winter hibernation. They can swim, but they sure as Hell can't catch a seal in the water. But with rising global temperatures the ice is getting thinner and breaking up sooner. Polar bears aren't drowning, but they are starving.

    ReplyDelete
  59. To expand on the points Venture Free, Ritchie, and Thorton made about "authority", I'd like to add that the IDiotic, religious science deniers also often set themselves up as an authority, either by associating themselves with their favorite perceived authority or just because of their own arrogance. And who or what could be a bigger 'authority' than an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, perfect god that is allegedly their BFF and dad? My dad can beat up your dad comes to mind, although in the case of an imaginary all powerful sky dad maybe it's more like, My dad can beat up your lack of a dad.

    Notice also how often the IDiots say "we" even though they're really only speaking for themselves, or at least should be. "We" is certainly appropriate at times but the IDiotic, religious science deniers use it a LOT when it is not appropriate, or accurate. Obviously it makes them feel as though there are lots of others on their 'side' on whatever point they're trying to make, whether there are or not or whether it's relevant or not.

    They're only concerned with authority and popularity, not evidence and facts. And, it's all about 'winning' to them.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I'm beginning to suspect that ur may be ba77, or a clone.

    In other news, ur said:

    "Why stop there? Why not tie an idea to a stereotype of say, a religion, and then discredit the idea by poking fun at the religion."

    Well, when religions promote crazy fairy tales, which they do, it's easy to poke fun at them. You godbots stereotype yourselves with your ridiculous beliefs.

    ur also ignorantly said:

    "This winter is the coldest winter we have experienced in Phoenix since I moved here in 1989. I'm sure your theory will fill in the "gaps" for that phenomenom as well just like your other lame theory does."

    As Ritchie pointed out, "global warming" does not mean that every square inch of this planet is getting warmer every day. Please do some research and learn something before you speak.

    ReplyDelete
  61. ur screamed:

    "Most people would deny the United States is a Christian nation. Funny how the revisionist have been successful in a huge coverup. Most people don't know that Christian church services were held in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES up until 1868 and Christian church services were even held in the US Supreme Court chambers!!!"

    So?

    The bible says that goats should be sacrificed, human slaves are A-OK and should only be beaten to near death, polygamy and incest are hunky dory, genocide is a fun way to spend an afternoon, drowning almost everything on Earth is way cool, smiting people who don't agree with you is the way to show peace and love, infesting/infecting people and animals and crops with deadly plagues is just for LOLZ, killing kids for being disobedient is required, killing lots of others is 'holy', and so on and so on.

    Should we all be doing that "Christian" stuff too? Should all that "Christian" stuff be done in the house of representatives and the supreme court to set a good example? Maybe you'd like to see it televised too?

    ReplyDelete
  62. I want to add something to this:

    Thorton said...

    natschuster said...

    I remeber a whjile back the big problem was acid rain. All the trees and frogs where dying. Then the problem was depletion of the ozone layer. Llamas where going blind. We were all going to die of skin cancer. What hsppened with that?

    What happened that science clearly identified the problem, and governments around the world took steps to drastically reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere. New antipollution rules and regulations were put in place, and were largely successful. SO2 levels have dropped by over 70% from the late 1970's, with a corresponding large drop in acid rain.

    ----------------

    As Thorton said, some of the problems that cause acid rain or ozone depletion have been dealt with to some extent in some places, but they're both still a problem, and a serious one in some places. Just because you don't see stories about them in the popular media every day doesn't mean that all the problems are solved and repaired.

    Do some research, nat. Oh wait, you don't know what that is.

    By the way, frogs and other amphibians are dying off rapidly, and not just because of acid rain.

    You really don't have a clue about nature, or human impact on it, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  63. twt, until you actually read the whole bible for yourself with understanding rather than digest all the hogwash from angry atheists websites your theological statements will continue to be absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Neal -

    until you actually read the whole bible for yourself with understanding...

    Forgive my cynicism, but that sounds an awful lot like: "Until you read the Bible with the assumption that it's true and a willingness to overlook all the absurd and morally atrocious bits..."

    Do you deny there are absurdities and moral atrocities in the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  65. THT:

    Have cancer rates gone up? Are llamas still going blind? I still see trees and forest. It doesn't look like all the prediction about these things have come true. And I'm reading now that the death of frogs is due to a parasitic worm, not acid rain. And while regulations have brought about some improvements, the Chinese are buring lots of coal and producing lots of pollution. Teh same thing is happening to a lesser extent in India. I would expect the problems to get worse. Are they? I'm not sure I'm clueless. I do admit to being confused because of all the above. After a while people stop believing chicken little when he repeatedly says the atmosphere is falling, then it doesn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Rithcie: "I see. But if you are 'pro taking-care-of-the-Earth', then what issues do you have with the Climate Change movement, exactly? Do you imagine them to be doing any HARM?"

    Sadly, yes I do. This is part of the attack by the UN on US Sovereignty. It is part of a scam that would basically transfer wealth from the US to the underdeveloped nations. While some might not be opposed to this Socialist agenda, just look at history and see the money never gets to the people that really need it. Also, I never believe a handout is good for anyone.

    Which brings me to a pertinent tangent. The US Government continues to devalue African Americans with their "programs", keeping them in poverty by keeping them dependent on the government. I really don't know why it so hard to figure out!!! The capitialists, free-enterprise system has produced the wealthiest nation in the world. Socialism and Communism have doomed their citizenry to low standards of living. I don't believe in un-checked criminal or crony capatialism and the criminal behavior we see on Wallstreet now, but there is nothing wrong with capitalism with integrity and the success that comes from it. The new generation looks at someone who is wealthy (let's assume they worked hard and go it honestly) and complains, they could have given that money to the poor. Again, just giving someone something devalues them as a human being. The Bible tells us the poor are the windows and the orphans. I'm not sure how, strong, able bodied men got on welfare programs. The Bible also taught land owners to to pick their crops clean, but leave some so that the poor could come through and pick the rest. They called these trappings. Do you get the principle, even though they were getting the food for free, they still had to work for it.

    I live in a 1% custom home neighborhood, gated with a lake and what were once over a million dollar homes. But there was a time back in 1989 I was living in a one room apartment and existing on the free pizza I got from the Domino's I was a delivery driver for. I moved to Tempe in 1990 and began applying with multiple police departments. I did that for two years and it wasn't until I started volunteering with the Tempe Police that I got hired. I worked there for 10 years before an opportunity to sell Commercial and Industrial HVAC equipment came up and I took it, along with a $30k pay cut from the PD. It was (and is) 100% commission based so the first two years were extremely difficult and of course, not without risk. But 11 years later it has been incredibly lucrative. But for the wallstreet occupy punk to look at me in my big house driving a nice car and think that someone just gave it all to me without any hard work or sacrifice on my part is maddening. And guess what, my wife and I sponsored 3 wells in India (through our church no less) and help build a dorm in Kenya for... you guessed it.. orphans! Poor people in America just really have no excuse!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Half truth again: "Notice also how often the IDiots say "we" even though they're really only speaking for themselves, or at least should be. "We" is certainly appropriate at times but the IDiotic, religious science deniers use it a LOT when it is not appropriate, or accurate. Obviously it makes them feel as though there are lots of others on their 'side' on whatever point they're trying to make, whether there are or not or whether it's relevant or not."

    Please google Gallup poll and tell me how many Americans belive in God. Then go searching for the percentage of people in the world that believe in some form of God. You, my friend, are in a TINY, TINY, TINY minority. You are dellusional.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Half Wit: "As Ritchie pointed out, "global warming" does not mean that every square inch of this planet is getting warmer every day. Please do some research and learn something before you speak."

    I know full well what the claims are doofus. They changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" after taking heat for their bogus claims which could't be proven. You aren't fooling anyone. The claim for years was that the whole earth was heating up. Ice caps were melting and I was going to be the owner of some great beach fron proerty in Arizona... sweet!

    ReplyDelete
  69. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  70. HAlf wit: "The bible says that goats should be sacrificed, human slaves are A-OK and should only be beaten to near death, polygamy and incest are hunky dory, genocide is a fun way to spend an afternoon, drowning almost everything on Earth is way cool, smiting people who don't agree with you is the way to show peace and love, infesting/infecting people and animals and crops with deadly plagues is just for LOLZ, killing kids for being disobedient is required, killing lots of others is 'holy', and so on and so on."

    This shows a completely ignorant lack of understanding of the Christian religion but is regularly the cry of Dawkins disciples. Please come up with some of your own material for once!! Here, I will school you so you don't have to bring up this nonsense again. The Christian story is divided up into two parts, Old and New Testaments. The division point is the birth, life, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. So when you quote the Old Testament to offend Christians, you just come off looking like a total nitwit. Christ's message was that of peace and love. He said, Pray for your enemies, If someone slaps you, turn the other cheek so they can slap the other one, If a roman soldier asks you to carry his gear for a mile, carry it for two. Care for the poor. The New Testament is full of teachings of another dude named Paul. He was into killing Christians at first but then had a conversion experience. Alot of his teachings were about controlling the inner sin we are all born with, you know, the animal within. So there you go, you can quit quoting half the story and leaving out all the good parts and the final chapters to the Story. You no longer have an excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ritchie: "Do you deny there are absurdities and moral atrocities in the Bible?"

    The point about being a materialist is you really shouldn't be able to borrow theistic terms. What is an atrocity according to materialism? Is not everything or every behavior "natural"?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ritchie, "Do you deny there are absurdities and moral atrocities in the Bible? "

    Did you have something specific in mind? Chapter and verse, please.

    ReplyDelete
  73. UR -

    Sadly, yes I do. This is part of the attack by the UN on US Sovereignty. It is part of a scam that would basically transfer wealth from the US to the underdeveloped nations. While some might not be opposed to this Socialist agenda, just look at history and see the money never gets to the people that really need it.

    Ummm, I feel like I've skipped a few pages here. I asked if you took issue with the science of climate change. And you have given me a staunch and verbose defense of capitalism. Which is lovely, but what is the connection between the two, exactly?

    I have a pet theory that the religious right thrives on hate, fear and xenophobia, and instills in its adherents a demonic and scary sense of 'other', lumping together atheism, communism, foreigners, liberalism, and basically anyone who politically disagrees with them. (I believe it stems from a sense of 'I am a proud national. So if you don';t agree with me, then you hate my country and our way of life!!!) And you seem to be vindicating that.

    If you'll forgive my pop-psychology, the point I am making is that you cannot just lump climate change in with communism, interracial politics and wall-street protesters and slander them all as merely un-American. That is merely to lazily dismiss them without considering the merits of any.

    The point about being a materialist is you really shouldn't be able to borrow theistic terms. What is an atrocity according to materialism? Is not everything or every behavior "natural"?

    I don't think 'absurdities' or 'atrocities' are theistic terms. The first seems to be a logical term, and the second a moral one. And morality has its roots in philosophy, not theology.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Neal -

    Did you have something specific in mind? Chapter and verse, please.

    Well, the story from Samuel 11:2 - 12:18 is one of my favourites for this.

    The Israelites are firmly settled in their promised land and are currently under the rule of King David. Despite being a generally rather good King, David is having a rather large lapse in moral judgement - he forces himself on a married woman, Bathsheba, and when he learns she is pregnant as a result, arranges for the husband, Uriah, to be killed in battle. He then marries Bathsheba himself, who gives birth to a boy. Yahweh, understandably, is less than impressed by David, though his moral high-horse sharply collapses and dies under the weight of the punishment He chooses to dish out (announced through a prophet, Nathan).

    Firstly that David's wives (yes, that's plural, for those of you who like to champion marriage as a sacred institution) get publically raped, which is its own little world of wrong, but also that their infant son dies - and a lingering death at that. David spends a week repenting and begging for forgiveness, but to no avail. God murders a newborn baby to spite the parent.

    Between the notions of women being the mere property of men, infanticide, and that you can justly punish a person by murdering their family, I find very little in this story that is not, at best, bizarre, and at worst, utterly repugnant. And this is apparently the behaviour of an infinitely good and loving and just being.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Ritchie said...

    Between the notions of women being the mere property of men, infanticide, and that you can justly punish a person by murdering their family, I find very little in this story that is not, at best, bizarre, and at worst, utterly repugnant. And this is apparently the behaviour of an infinitely good and loving and just being


    I like the story of how God sent two she-bears to kill forty-two little children, having them torn and mutilated to a horrible death just because the children had made fun of a bald man.

    But everyone knows those little children had it coming, right Tedford and UR?

    ReplyDelete
  76. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Indeed, the sheer number of times God orders, endorses, or even commits infanticide kinda belies the Conservative fallacy that Christianity stands firmly opposed to abortion. Though the Bible never addresses the issue directly, what kind of value does a belief system truly put on the life of a child if they can be killed for petty sins, for the crimes of their parents, and even in acts of genocide?

    I'm not claiming to be a saint, but I think I am, on average, a pretty decent guy. And one of the reasons I think this is that I do not find myself making excuses for the killing of children. Admittedly this is not a high bar. But that just makes it all the more jaw-dropping that so many Christians (who so often claim that their religion is the source of morality) do not meet it.

    The fact is that the Bible endorses infanticide - in many places and often for petty reasons. So Christians have only three options:

    1) Accept that the Bible contains immorality. An unacceptable choice for most. Their dogma makes this totally unthinkable.

    2) Deny that the passage in question REALLY does endorse infanticide. This is the most common route, and yet so often utterly futile. That is one of the reasons I like the passage I quoted - it is utterly clear God murdered the child for the sins of the father.

    3) Defend infanticide itself as morally permissible (at least sometimes). Possibly the most worrying of the three.

    Good men will do good deeds. Bad men will do bad deeds. But for good men to do bad deeds takes religion.

    ReplyDelete
  78. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Ritchie said...

    Indeed, the sheer number of times God orders, endorses, or even commits infanticide kinda belies the Conservative fallacy that Christianity stands firmly opposed to abortion.


    One interesting statistic is that in the human population between 3-4% of the women of childbearing age are pregnant at any given time.

    If we assume a population of 1 million at the time of Noah's Flood, 500K were women. Of those, roughly half, or 250K, were of childbearing age. That means approximately 7,500 - 10,000 were pregnant when the Fountains Of The Deep let loose.

    So God deliberately killed between 7,500 and 10,000 unborn babies when he sent the Flood. That makes Tedford and UR's God the most prolific abortionist of all time.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Ritchie: "Ummm, I feel like I've skipped a few pages here. I asked if you took issue with the science of climate change. And you have given me a staunch and verbose defense of capitalism. Which is lovely, but what is the connection between the two, exactly?"

    Yes I think the science is bogus. I think false data is being used for a political agenda. "Carbon credits" would be used to transfer wealth out of the US.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6764877/Copenhagen-climate-summit-developing-countries-warn-of-absolute-devastation.html

    Just google the articles. It is a political agenda people!!!

    Ritchie, while I'm at it, I'm guessing you are anti-gun and pro-abortion. Am I right?

    ReplyDelete
  81. "I have a pet theory that the religious right thrives on hate, fear and xenophobia, and instills in its adherents a demonic and scary sense of 'other', lumping together atheism, communism, foreigners, liberalism, and basically anyone who politically disagrees with them."

    Yeah, because this is what our Christian Founding Fathers did, right?

    ReplyDelete
  82. You guys present some great questions about the Old Testament. But really, any views or notions the Israelites had about God and his love should have been put to rest when he came in the flesh. Immanuel-God is with us. Why get hung up on Israel's history, when God became man and walked among us. Shouldn't we look at Christ as more representative of God's nature than that of the description given in their limited understanding prior to Christ's coming?

    Like I said, and this thread has evidenced it even more... There are no atheists, only people who are angry with God, or angry with someone who claimed to be a Christ follower and treated them poorly. We live in a sinful world. Christians, actually true Christ followers aren't perfect, but at least they should be striving to be like Christ. My wife always says it... Words and Actions-which one speaks louder. Christ is our example. Paul captured the struggle here...

    Romans 7

    15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

    21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

    ReplyDelete
  83. Recommended reading for the Old Testament haters: "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell.

    ReplyDelete
  84. UR -

    Just google the articles. It is a political agenda people!!!

    It is a political issue. That does not mean it is a conspiracy to squeeze money out of the American economy. If that were the case why would American scientists be advocating it?

    Ritchie, while I'm at it, I'm guessing you are anti-gun and pro-abortion. Am I right?

    Well, pretty much yes. Does that disappoint you? Am I a liberal cliche?

    Yeah, because this is what our Christian Founding Fathers did, right?

    The Founding Fathers built America to be a secular state. They certainly did not envisage it being the Christian country you sound like you wish it was.

    You guys present some great questions about the Old Testament. But really, any views or notions the Israelites had about God and his love should have been put to rest when he came in the flesh. Immanuel-God is with us. Why get hung up on Israel's history, when God became man and walked among us. Shouldn't we look at Christ as more representative of God's nature than that of the description given in their limited understanding prior to Christ's coming?

    This is inconsistent. Is the Old Testament part of the Holy Bible or not? It sounds like you are suggesting we disregard everything that came before the New Testament, and hold this alone to be holy scripture. Is that, in fact, your position? Genesis, Abraham, Moses, the Ten Commandments, the prophets... all this is primitve superstitious myth and it is only the New Testament which is the inerrant word of God...?

    Like I said, and this thread has evidenced it even more... There are no atheists, only people who are angry with God, or angry with someone who claimed to be a Christ follower and treated them poorly.

    I certainly disagree there. I do not believe in a God or gods because I see absolutely no evidence, physical or logical, which justifies such a belief. The world, as far as I can see, is in exactly the state we might expect if religion was just myth, and not at all what I would expect if it was true.

    Christians, actually true Christ followers aren't perfect, but at least they should be striving to be like Christ. My wife always says it... Words and Actions-which one speaks louder. Christ is our example. Paul captured the struggle here...

    There is nothing at all uniquely Christian - or for that matter religious - in striving to be a good person. An atheist can strive to do exactly that. And if you are merely holding up Christ as a role-model, then fine and dandy. But you seem to go further than that. You seem to believe the fantastical myths about him are literally true. This is where you cross a line into blind faith.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Ritchie: "This is where you cross a line into blind faith."

    How is it blind? Are you asserting that a man named Jesus Christ walked on the earth 2000 years ago. Hmmm, wait a second, oh, I seem to remember it is 2012 AD. What does AD mean you ask? Oh yeah, Anno Domini. And what is the translation from Latin? Oh yeah, "In the year of our Lord". And who is this Lord they are basing our entire calendar system on worldwide? Oh yeah, that would be JESUS CHRIST.

    ReplyDelete
  86. You guys also seem to be a little in the dark on why America was founded in the first place. Let's check out the "Mayflower Compac" and see what it says. You do know what the Mayflower was right?

    "In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
    Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic;..."

    Wait just a dang minute!! What did that say? Why did the pilgrims come to America? For the Glory of God and the Advancement of the Christian Faith? Tell me it isn't so!!!

    ReplyDelete
  87. Really the absolute genius of Christ was that he really left it impossible to be on the fence about him. He claimed numerous times while he was on the earth that he was the Son of God, so you either believe he was, or you believe he was a liar, a fake, a charleton, an evil person. So funny when people don't accept him as the Son of God but say he was a good man or a good prophet. I don't know about you but it would be pretty evil to lie the way he did and then fake his death and mislead millions of people. That is, unless he really was telling the truth. Like I said, there is no middle ground when it comes to Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Well, ur, there's certainly no middle ground when it comes to your insanity. You're 100% nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  89. UR -

    How is it blind? Are you asserting that a man named Jesus Christ walked on the earth 2000 years ago. Hmmm, wait a second, oh, I seem to remember it is 2012 AD. What does AD mean you ask? Oh yeah, Anno Domini. And what is the translation from Latin? Oh yeah, "In the year of our Lord". And who is this Lord they are basing our entire calendar system on worldwide? Oh yeah, that would be JESUS CHRIST.

    This is no evidence at all. All it shows is that the people who drew up the calendar we currently use BELIEVED in Jesus, nothing more. Which is, in fact, the case. The Gregorian calendar was drawn up in the sixteenth century on the orders of Pope Gregory XIII after whom it was named. It was however based on the year-numbering system drawn up in the 6th century. That's 500 years between Christ and people trying to calculate his birth. No-one is denying there were Christians in 500 AD, and their sincere faith, much less the fact that they tried to calculate Jesus' birth year, is no evidence at all for a real, historic Jesus.

    In actual fact there is a terribly conspicuous lack of evidence of Jesus being a real person. There are absolutely no historical records of him which were written by people who even lived at the same time as Jesus. This alone is deeply suspicious for someone as fantastical as Jesus was supposed to have been - travelling far and wide, drawing huge crowds and performing incredible miracles. And there are plenty of historians who SHOULD have noticed Jesus had he been real, and yet fail to.

    Philo of Alexandria, for example, was a Jewish philosopher living in, or directly around, Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' ministry. He wrote about everything of interest to the Jews, including several 'heretic' offshoots and 'false messiahs' and yet never mentions anyone who fits the description of Jesus. Then there is Justus of Tiberius who, in 80 AD, wrote a history of Galilee covering the time Jesus supposedly lived, and yet conspicuously fails to mention him. Then there are the many, many historians such as Pliny the Younger who totally fail to notice Jesus' more conspicuous miracles, such as the darkening of the sun at his death and saints returning to life. Given that Jesus spent three years preaching and performing miracles to crowds of thousands, how can it possibly be that NO-ONE wrote down ANYTHING?

    Note I am not including the gospels themselves as historical documents, since it is the accuracy of the gospels which is itself what is in question. They are unsupported by the historical record of the time and this alone gives us reason to doubt them. Then there is the fact that they are anonymous - the titles were attached to them centuries later. They never actually CLAIM to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Finally there is the Synoptic Problem showing beyond doubt that these are theologically-motivated stories which copied heavily from each other rather than being independent, impartial eyewitness accounts.

    The evidence for a historical Jesus is incredibly anemic. The idea that he was just a story that people came to take seriously fits the evidence far, far better.

    ReplyDelete
  90. UR -

    Wait just a dang minute!! What did that say? Why did the pilgrims come to America? For the Glory of God and the Advancement of the Christian Faith? Tell me it isn't so!!!

    Once again, no-one is denying that the founding fathers were religious. But what you don't seem to be able to grasp is the concept of religious people founding a secular state.

    The very first words of the First Amendment are:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    The founding fathers believed in FREEDOM OF RELIGION - the idea that people had the right to believe in and practice whatever religion they chose to. And the only way that is achieved is if the government stays entirely neutral on the issue, not promoting any religion over others, or indeed, religion itself over non-religion. It may not promote or give preferential treatment to a certain faith. It may not act in a way which coerses people to join in with the rituals of a particular faith. And it may not help people achieve thing s they could not otherwise achieve legally.

    It does not matter at all whether the founding fathers were religious. As it happens, they were, but, it in the state which they themselves built, that was merely a matter of personal faith. It was their choice to be Christian, but they also respected the choice of Jews, Muslims, even atheists apparently, to have the freedom to practice their religions as they saw fit. They simply chose, when drawing up the constitution, not to impose THEIR religious beliefs onto other people, and to make it constitutionally impossible for others to do so either. This is a sound and noble concept.

    There were numerous attempts to add specifically religious amendments into the constitution, including the National Reform Association whose goal was to change the preamble to the following:

    We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

    Yet they all failed. Every time someone tried to amend the constitution so that it merely included a mention of Jesus, God or Christianity, they were legally defeated. The Constitution is, and was always intended to be by it's authors, a godless document.

    ReplyDelete
  91. UR -

    Really the absolute genius of Christ was that he really left it impossible to be on the fence about him. He claimed numerous times while he was on the earth that he was the Son of God, so you either believe he was, or you believe he was a liar, a fake, a charleton, an evil person. So funny when people don't accept him as the Son of God but say he was a good man or a good prophet. I don't know about you but it would be pretty evil to lie the way he did and then fake his death and mislead millions of people. That is, unless he really was telling the truth. Like I said, there is no middle ground when it comes to Christ.

    How about believing that he did not exist at all? How about believing he was simply a religious story that people, for whatever reason, started to believe literally existed.

    ReplyDelete
  92. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Ritchie: "The founding fathers believed in FREEDOM OF RELIGION - the idea that people had the right to believe in and practice whatever religion they chose to."

    Yes they did. But the government was based on Christian principles by Christian men. The two do not have to me mutually exclusive. People are free to worship as they choose in the United States, but this doesn't mean the government didn't start as a Christian one, and basically by the dissent of a few, like Thomas Jefferson, all the language was whittled out.

    But here is an example of what it had been...

    Here, from Article 22 of the Delaware Constition, requiring policitians to swear an oath that they were Christians.

    ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

    " I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

    And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

    " I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

    ReplyDelete
  94. Basically the same thing was happening all over again like it had in England. There was forced government support of a specific denomination which included taxation. Jefferson wrote about this in his biography...

    To meet these expenses all the inhabitants of the parishes were assessed, whether they were or not, members of the established church. Towards Quakers who came here they were most cruelly intolerant, driving them from the colony by the severest penalties. In process of time however, other sectarisms were introduced, chiefly of the Presbyterian family; and the established clergy, secure for life in their glebes and salaries, adding to these generally the emoluments of a classical school, found employment enough, in their farms and schoolrooms for the rest of the week, and devoted Sunday only to the edification of their flock, by service, and a sermon at their parish church. Their other pastoral functions were little attended to. Against this inactivity the zeal and industry of sectarian preachers had an open and undisputed field; and by the time of the revolution, a majority of the inhabitants had become dissenters from the established church, but were still obliged to pay contributions to support the Pastors of the minority. This unrighteous compulsion to maintain teachers of what they deemed religious errors was grievously felt during the regal government, and without a hope of relief. But the first republican legislature which met in 76. was crowded with petitions to abolish this spiritual tyranny. These brought on the severest contests in which I have ever been engaged. Our great opponents were Mr. Pendleton & Robert Carter Nicholas, honest men, but zealous churchmen. The petitions were referred to the commee of the whole house on the state of the country; and after desperate contests in that committee, almost daily from the 11th of Octob. to the 5th of December, we prevailed so far only as to repeal the laws which rendered criminal the maintenance of any religious opinions, the forbearance of repairing to church, or the exercise of any mode of worship: and further, to exempt dissenters from contributions to the support of the established church; and to suspend, only until the next session levies on the members of that church for the salaries of their own incumbents.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Ritchie, rather than cut and paste your lengthy diatribe about no evidence for Christ, I will just chuckle and know that you obviously haven't looked to hard for evidence.

    Extra Biblical Evidence of Jesus, John the Baptist, James, etc. While some of the later manuscripts are claimed to have embellished descriptions of Jesus, the authenticated portions of the earliest manuscripts still at least mention Jesus, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and James.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James_.28xx_9.1.29

    ReplyDelete
  96. There is much more extra biblical evidence than just one jewish dude. If you don't want to be a regurgitating atheist with the same quoted un-educated dribble about actual evidence for Jesus' existence, then you might want to read Lee Strobel's "The case for Christ".

    ReplyDelete
  97. No Truth: "Well, ur, there's certainly no middle ground when it comes to your insanity. You're 100% nuts."

    Ritchie called me out on the insults and even though it was fun to own you at your own game, I am going to behave like an adult from now on and refrain from doing it.

    My psychosis is worldwide, because your lack of belief in God puts you in the 1%.

    ReplyDelete
  98. UR -

    Yes they did. But the government was based on Christian principles by Christian men.

    What Christian principles, specifically?

    Here, from Article 22 of the Delaware Constition, requiring policitians to swear an oath that they were Christians.

    Indeed, because until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights was only binding on federal governments, not on state governments. Several states retained their own official churches for some decades after the War of Independence. No religious wording is to be found in the federal documents.

    Basically the same thing was happening all over again like it had in England. There was forced government support of a specific denomination which included taxation. Jefferson wrote about this in his biography...

    What you actually quote here is Jefferson describing religious oppression by the Puritans. It was just this kind of cruel oppression that can arise when church and government are intertwined that so clearly demonstrated the importance of keeping them forever seperate - a point obviously not lost of Jefferson.

    Extra Biblical Evidence of Jesus, John the Baptist, James, etc. While some of the later manuscripts are claimed to have embellished descriptions of Jesus, the authenticated portions of the earliest manuscripts still at least mention Jesus, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and James.

    You cite Josephus. But there are numerous problems here. First and foremost, Josephus was born in 37 AD. He was born 4 years after Jesus was apparently crucified. His is not a first-hand account. He can only be reporting hearsay - stories he has heard from others. This immediately casts a shadow over its reliability.

    Secondly, Josephus was a Jew. And yet he apparently speaks of Jesus in absolutely glowing terms - in no apparent doubt that he was the Messiah. So why did he never convert? Also, he worked directly underneath the Roman Emporer. It is inconceivable that he would have been allowed to write such things and undermine the authority of his Emporer and patron. There are good reasons why so many scholars consider his mentions of Jesus to be forgeries inserted later by Christian scribes.

    Also, just to be clear, Josephus mention Jesus only twice, and neither passage has been authenticated. And if you think mentions of Pilate indirectly authenticate Josephus' mentions of Jesus, then what does it say that he also mentions Heracles as a real historical person (and more times than he mentions Jesus)? We consider Heracles to be a mythical figure today, but in the ancient world they honestly believed he really existed. Doesn't the fact that Josephus is found speaking of mythical characters as though they were genuine, historical people, undermine him as a credible source for establishing Jesus as a historical figure too?

    There is much more extra biblical evidence than just one jewish dude.

    Well, there are certain passages religious apologists like to throw about whenever they are asked for evidence, including a mention from the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus. But none of them stand up well at all. For a start, none of them are contemporary to Jesus. There is not a single mention of Jesus to be found in any document written by anyone who was even alive during 33 AD.

    And besides, the passages cited are often laughably flimsy. Seutonius, for example, merely talks of Jews in early Rome causing trouble at the behest of a man called Chrestus (assumed to be a spelling mistake, but Chrestus was actually a common Roman name. And Seutonus talks of Jews, not Christians, though he obviously knows the difference). When actually examined, the passages commonly cited to defend a historical Jesus don't really stand up at all.

    ReplyDelete
  99. UR (cont)

    If you don't want to be a regurgitating atheist with the same quoted un-educated dribble about actual evidence for Jesus' existence, then you might want to read Lee Strobel's "The case for Christ".

    I have actually seen a youtube clip of his 'evidence for Christ' and I have to confess I burst out laughing. He sincerely cited as historical evidence:

    Jesus' Execution (No, really. If the gaping flaw isn't obvious enough then I'll spell it out: the ONLY source for this is in the Bible. Circular logic. If the Bible is fiction, there is no execution to account for. This is no evidence at all.)

    Empty tomb (See Execution.)

    Eyewitnesses (See Execution.)

    Early records (Early, perhaps, but NOT contemporary. There is not a single non-Biblical source which mentions Jesus written by anyone who was alive through Jesus' alleged lifetime.)

    The Emergence of the Church (How is this evidence for Jesus?)

    In short, no evidence at all, really.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Ritchie: "What you actually quote here is Jefferson describing religious oppression by the Puritans. It was just this kind of cruel oppression that can arise when church and government are intertwined that so clearly demonstrated the importance of keeping them forever seperate - a point obviously not lost of Jefferson."

    Yeah, that was my point.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Ritchie: "You cite Josephus. But there are numerous problems here. First and foremost, Josephus was born in 37 AD. He was born 4 years after Jesus was apparently crucified. His is not a first-hand account. He can only be reporting hearsay - stories he has heard from others. This immediately casts a shadow over its reliability.

    Secondly, Josephus was a Jew. And yet he apparently speaks of Jesus in absolutely glowing terms - in no apparent doubt that he was the Messiah. So why did he never convert? Also, he worked directly underneath the Roman Emporer. It is inconceivable that he would have been allowed to write such things and undermine the authority of his Emporer and patron. There are good reasons why so many scholars consider his mentions of Jesus to be forgeries inserted later by Christian scribes."

    Ritchie, did you read my post? First, AD is widely accepted on to be accurate to the birthday of Christ to within 30 years, so this throws out your argument. Also, did you mention the part where I said the glowing talk of Christ is believed to have been changed in later manuscripts but authenticated documents still mention Jesus, John the Baptist, and Pontius Pilate. So forget the prais speech for Christ, he still mentioned that he was a real person in the authenticated portion of the manuscripts. I wrote the exact same thing you posted in rebuttal in my description of Josephus. Did you actually read my post??

    ReplyDelete
  102. Ritchie: "There is not a single mention of Jesus to be found in any document written by anyone who was even alive during 33 AD."

    I have read the internet site where you obviously nabbed alot of your misinformation about a historical Jesus from. Bottom line, you could be handed a signed statement from Jesus, documented and authenticated, and you could still come up with a reason not to believe it. Because to believe in him, would thrust you back into the guilt and shame you had when you knew your thoughts about other men were evil. You finally convinced yourself your attractions were normal and promptly dismissed your religion. I am guessing short of a miracle, you will never be open to any other evidence of God or his Son. So it is kind of stupid to argue about it.

    ReplyDelete
  103. The author of that site you referred to is a fool. He totally quotes and relies on the dates and then makes this statement in the end...

    "The A.D. (Anno Domini, or "year of our Lord") dating method derived from a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Little), in the sixth-century who used it in his Easter tables. Oddly, some people seem to think this has relevance to a historical Jesus. But of course it has nothing at all to do with it. In the time before and during the 6th century, people used various other dating methods. The Romans used A.U.C. (anno urbis conditae, "year of the founded city," that being Rome). The Jews had their own dating system. Not until the tenth century did most churches accept the new dating system.

    So he readily admits it is hard to pinpoint the birthdate of Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  104. ultimate retarded rhetoric slobbered:

    "Because to believe in him, would thrust you back into the guilt and shame you had when you knew your thoughts about other men were evil. You finally convinced yourself your attractions were normal and promptly dismissed your religion. I am guessing short of a miracle, you will never be open to any other evidence of God or his Son."

    You are a profound example of why religion is insane and dangerous. The arrogance, pomposity, amorality, dishonesty, bigotry, and sanctimony in your remarks, especially to Ritchie, are truly amazing, yet typical of you narcissistic god zombies.

    You are just like the imaginary god you worship and promote; a shallow, two-faced, dictatorial, malicious, ugly monster. If you want to see "evil", look at a mirror.

    ReplyDelete
  105. UR -

    ME: What you actually quote here is Jefferson describing religious oppression by the Puritans.

    YOU: Yeah, that was my point.


    ... Which is why the founding fathers insisted on the constitutional seperation of church and state. They knew how oppressive religion could be when the two were intertwined. It's the reason USA is a secular state.

    Ritchie, did you read my post? First, AD is widely accepted on to be accurate to the birthday of Christ to within 30 years, so this throws out your argument.

    Does it? How? Surely it means Josephus is as likely to be even further removed from Jesus' alledged lifetime?

    Also, did you mention the part where I said the glowing talk of Christ is believed to have been changed in later manuscripts but authenticated documents still mention Jesus, John the Baptist, and Pontius Pilate.

    What authenticated documents? Josephus mentions Jesus only twice - in Anitquities book 18, and in Antiquities book 20. Both are likely later interlopations from Christian scribes.

    Bottom line, you could be handed a signed statement from Jesus, documented and authenticated, and you could still come up with a reason not to believe it.

    That is absolutely not true and grossly unfair. You have presented evidence which is pretty flimsy, and are now calling me impossibly sceptical for not simply accepting it.

    I am not impossible to satisfy. The problem is the lack of solid, reliable historical evidence for Jesus. That is the fact you are twisting and turning to avoid having to face.

    Because to believe in him, would thrust you back into the guilt and shame you had when you knew your thoughts about other men were evil. You finally convinced yourself your attractions were normal and promptly dismissed your religion.

    This is all rather disappointing. You are now inventing reasons to dismiss anything I say. No need to consider the points that I raise - I'm just an angry, bitter atheist who rejects Jesus because I don't want to accept my sexuality is a sin!

    This is just a defence mechanism (and a fairly transparent one too) to avoid coming to the conclusion that I might have a valid point. The historical evidence for Jesus IS incredibly weak, and mostly suspiciously absent - no matter what either of us WANTS to believe about it.

    I am guessing short of a miracle, you will never be open to any other evidence of God or his Son.

    Then you guess wrong. I do in fact have a list of things which would satisfy me of the truth of a particular religion and I don't think any of them are at all unreasonable. These include:

    - A holy book which was absolutely free of internal inconsistencies, scientific errors, and included verified, specific prophecies and/or scientific information which was totally unknown at the time. Many religions make these claims for their holy book, but none actually measure up.

    - The ability of any religion's followers to bring about miracles on command simply through prayer.

    - A religion without any factions and internal disputes.

    - A religion with a perfect record for winning holy wars.

    I am not impossible to please. I am perfectly happy to be shown to be wrong. But I would insist on solid, verifiable evidence, and THAT is where religion falls down because it is something they all completely lack.

    ReplyDelete
  106. UR -

    So he readily admits it is hard to pinpoint the birthdate of Jesus.

    I don't doubt it. Yet he made the attempt. And the dating system we have is his best guess.

    I might also ask WHY it is so hard to pinpoint Jesus' year of birth. It is because there are no dates given, and many of the 'historical' facts in the gospels simply do not match up: there was, for example, no great Roman empire-wide census by the Emporer Augustus. Also, Luke claims Jesus was born while Quirinius was the governor of Syria, but Matthew states it was while Herod the Great reigned over Judea. But these reigns do not coincide. There is a 10/11 year gap between the two. In short, the historical facts in the gospels are a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Ritchie: "Which is why the founding fathers insisted on the constitutional seperation of church and state"

    Yes, church and state, not religion and state.

    Notice how I am not responding to Thorton anymore? His posts are just a lot of noise, totall absent of any semblance of a desire to have an honest discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Ritchie: "That is absolutely not true and grossly unfair. You have presented evidence which is pretty flimsy, and are now calling me impossibly sceptical for not simply accepting it.

    I am not impossible to satisfy. The problem is the lack of solid, reliable historical evidence for Jesus. That is the fact you are twisting and turning to avoid having to face."

    You read the statements of one guy.
    Human nature is to find something to support what you want to believe.

    The fact that Jesus existed historically is widely accepted by scholars and historians. I would say your guys viewpoint is in the extreme minority, a minority which happens to be a majority of atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Ritchie: - "A holy book which was absolutely free of internal inconsistencies, scientific errors, and included verified, specific prophecies and/or scientific information which was totally unknown at the time. Many religions make these claims for their holy book, but none actually measure up.

    - The ability of any religion's followers to bring about miracles on command simply through prayer.

    - A religion without any factions and internal disputes.

    - A religion with a perfect record for winning holy wars."

    Holy Cow man!! Not impossible to please? And you think the materialist religion can live up to this standard?

    Scripture may be inspired by God, but it was written by fallable man. People forget that the Bible isn't some magical book. Take the books of the Bible written by Paul. These are real letters written by a real person to real churches at a specific time in history. To understand them you must understand the culture, customs and language at the time as well as the history of the people involved. To pluck verses out of these letters and attempt to make them stand on their own is to rob the book of its deeper meaning.

    Just get a copy of Velvet Elvis.

    ReplyDelete
  110. UR -

    Yes, church and state, not religion and state.

    Okay, I think you've got me confused. You are saying the US contituion advocated the seperation of church and state but not religion and state? What is the distinction and why do you think so?

    You read the statements of one guy.

    I am not just repeating the ramblings of one crackpot who says there is no historical evidence for Jesus. I have looked, and no-one is able to present any solid, unambiguous, trustworthy, first-hand eyewitness, accounts. Good evidence is just not there.

    Human nature is to find something to support what you want to believe.

    Confirmation bias. A fallacy indeed for critical thinking. But I hope I am not guilty of it. I have tried to falsify my proposition - I have indeed looked for good evidence for a historical Jesus. But there is simply none to be had.

    The fact that Jesus existed historically is widely accepted by scholars and historians. I would say your guys viewpoint is in the extreme minority, a minority which happens to be a majority of atheists.

    It is also the majority position among scholars that, if Jesus did exust, he did not exist as protrayed in the Bible. If he was ever a real person, it is unlikely we will ever discover him, given the amount of Pauline mythology heaped on top of him. Because the mythology is all we really have to go on. All we have is mythology, and people trying to decide if it is more likely that it was drawn up from nothing, or merely projected onto a real historical figure. That is all.

    Note that a real, historical, entirely human Jesus is not enough to justify your religious faith. The bedrock of Christianity is in the most outlandish, fantastical (and therefore, least likely) aspects of the Jesus myth being true.

    Holy Cow man!! Not impossible to please?

    Nope. I honestly don't see how any of these are in the slightest bit unreasonable. We are, after all, talking about an omnipotent being.

    And you think the materialist religion can live up to this standard?

    Materialism is not a religion.

    Scripture may be inspired by God, but it was written by fallable man. People forget that the Bible isn't some magical book.

    I'm impressed. And I agree. The Bible IS a fallible, man-made book. It DOES need to be interpreted in the socio-historical context in which it was written. Which just beggars the question why we should follow it at all.

    If the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, then what good is it? I understand that a flawed document can still be of use to a historican, but the Bible is used for far more than that. People try to use it as a template for how we should live TODAY. If the Bible is just a human construct, then it reflects nothing more than the opinions, biases, attitudes, and beliefs of the society in which it was written. What is says about gay rights, abortion, stem-cell research, creation, etc., carries no more weight than what any other book says about them. We are under no obligation to live according to the beliefs and culture of a centires-old society.

    Just get a copy of Velvet Elvis.

    I just had a quick scoot around on the net for him. Far be it from me to critique a man's work without actually reading it properly, but is he actually doing anything more than giving his religion a slightly new spin, as so many have done before him? Does he ever actually present anything tangible which makes the Christian belief a more reasonable prospect?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Ritchie said, "David spends a week repenting and begging for forgiveness, but to no avail. God murders a newborn baby to spite the parent."


    --

    No, if you read the scripture, David repented immediately after the prophet Nathan confronted him about his sin (2 Samuel 12:13). It also said that God immediately forgave him (same verse- 2 Samuel 12:13).

    So, neither David, nor his baby, paid the penalty for his sin. Jesus Christ PAID the penalty for David's sin when he died upon the cross. God's justice and holiness demands payment for sin. God's love took him to the cross to pay the penalty.

    The Bible does link the death of the baby with David's sin... "Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme", but it says nothing of it being down to pay a penalty or in spite.

    David's prayer and fasting was for the child's life because he had an understanding of how great God's mercy was. When the child died David took comfort in that he would someday go to be with his child (2 Samuel 12:23). The child was certainly not guilty of David's sin and like other infants went to heaven. The child's death served as a lasting reminder to David and many that sin does have consequences, God is ultimately sovereign, but also merciful. As the creator God is within his rights to give or take life without having to explain it.

    God did have mercy on David in forgiving his sin and allowing him to continue to be king and to go on and write inspired psalms that have blessed the lives of countless people in the last 3,100 years.

    As Ultimate Reality explained, we are in the New Testament now, not the old.

    I see atheists quoting the Old Testament a lot in their arguments... I sense that they really do not comprehend, nor understand how absolutely radical and better the New Testament is than the Old. They are doing themselves a great injustice by ignoring the New Testament (covenant) by which God deals with mankind today.

    C.S Lewis spoke of God's love in this way "Nobody can always have devout feelings: and even if we could, feelings are not what God principally cares about. Christian Love, either towards God or towards man, is an affair of the will. If we are trying to do His will we are obeying the commandment, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.’ He will give us feelings of love if He pleases. We cannot create them for ourselves, and we must not demand them as a right. But the great thing to remember is that, though our feelings come and go, His love for us does not. It is not wearied by our sins, or our indifference; and, therefore, it is quite relentless in its determination that we shall be cured of those sins, at whatever cost to us, at whatever cost to Him."

    There was once a young lady who received a speeding ticket which she could not afford to pay. She took it to the judge to get it dismissed. The judge reviewed the evidence, found her guilty of the violation. Then the judge stepped from the bench, took off his robe reached into his pocket and pulled out his wallet and handed his daughter the money to pay the fine. He upheld the law without compromising its integrity, yet paid the price for breaking the law.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Neal -

    A masterful reinterpretation. Bravo.

    But it won't wash. It states in black and white that God deliberately killed the child in punishment for David's sins. In the words of the prophet Nathan, God's mouthpice:

    Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
    And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
    David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
    And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth, but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
    And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.


    God struck the child Himself, declaring it to be a punishment for David's actions. A week of fasting and repentance on David's part was not enough to get God to change his mind. The baby died, paying the price of his father's misdeeds. This is not justice by ANY stretch of the imagination. This is abhorrent.

    Denying the child was killed in retribution might calm your muddled mind which must have been stretched to breaking point trying to interpret this story in a way which DOESN'T paint God as the most horrific monster. But it doesn't stand up at all.

    God did have mercy on David in forgiving his sin and allowing him to continue to be king and to go on and write inspired psalms that have blessed the lives of countless people in the last 3,100 years.

    And that just makes it WORSE - that the guilty party is let off scot-free while the innocent pay with their lives.

    I see atheists quoting the Old Testament a lot in their arguments... I sense that they really do not comprehend, nor understand how absolutely radical and better the New Testament is than the Old.

    Then why is the Old Testament part of the Holy Bible? Is it scripture or not? Is it holy to a Christian or not? Does it make sense? Does it accurately reflect the sensibilities of the one and only God? If so, then you should have no troubling defending any part of it and 'Oh, that's just the OLD Testament' is no excuse at all. But if not, then why on Earth is it part (and the larger part, at that) of the Bible?

    There was once a young lady who received a speeding ticket which she could not afford to pay...

    Well, that's a lovely story. But I utterly fail to see what it has to do with the story of David's child. A far more appropriate story would have been in the girl had been hauled into court and the judge himself slaughtered the girl's baby, and then let her off with no further consequences. What, I wonder, would you make of such a judge?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Ritchie: "I'm impressed. And I agree. The Bible IS a fallible, man-made book. It DOES need to be interpreted in the socio-historical context in which it was written. Which just beggars the question why we should follow it at all."

    You are forgetting it is inspired by God. The principles abide regardless of culture or time in history. To say that I don't struggle with some things in the Old Testament would be a lie. But Christ came to fulfil the law and bring it into focus. Jesus told Pilate the reason he came to the earth:

    John 18:37
    “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

    I am glad Neal butted in. I am not a theologian nor am I a great conveyor of the principles at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Ritchie said, "But if not, then why on Earth is it part (and the larger part, at that) of the Bible?"

    --

    The Old Testament is part of scripture, but the New Testament has completely replaced the Old Testament from God's viewpoint. The Old Testament was instituted by God for many reasons. Reasons that are too lengthy to expand on here. But, just to point out briefly one of its purposes was to teach principles of the holiness of God and the fact that man falls short of God's holiness on our own efforts. The Israelites under the Old Covenant experienced the death and destruction that came from the law. That's why the New Testament and work of Jesus Christ is all the more meaninful to those that understand the purposes of the Old Covenant. It is a bit ironic for atheists to point out the destruction in the Old Testament because while they point out specifics they totally miss the big picture. Yes, there was a lot of death and destruction under the Old Covenant... that was the point! That's why it was replaced by a new and better covenant.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Neal -

    The Old Testament is part of scripture, but the New Testament has completely replaced the Old Testament from God's viewpoint.

    Replaced. Does that mean it is no longer relevant? No longer correct? Are the things the Old Testament says is good/right/true still good/right/true?

    It is a bit ironic for atheists to point out the destruction in the Old Testament because while they point out specifics they totally miss the big picture. Yes, there was a lot of death and destruction under the Old Covenant... that was the point! That's why it was replaced by a new and better covenant.

    Uh-huh. So God was a vindictive, blood-thirsty tyrant in the Old Testament so that he could totally contradict himself and be all loving and forgiving when he was incarnated as his own son (or something) in the New Testament?

    Makes perfect sense. How silly of me.

    ReplyDelete
  116. UR -

    You are forgetting it is inspired by God. The principles abide regardless of culture or time in history.

    But if you allow that the Bible can contain interpretive bias and plain, simple errors, then you lose any reason to suspect any of it is true.

    A perfect example of which is what you just quoted. You just gave me a few lines exchanged between Pilate and Jesus. But how do you know they are right? How do you know they are the words they ACTUALLY spoke? They were, after all, written down by fallible, limited men who make mistakes.

    Pull on this loose thread, and you'll pretty soon discover you have little reason to believe ANYTHING the Bible says.

    In the meantime, to merely dismiss bits of the Bible you don't like/understand with 'Well, maybe the authors made a mistake there', whilst endorsing the bits you DO like with 'It must be true - it says so in the Bible' is just trying to have your cake and eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Ritchie said, "Replaced. Does that mean it is no longer relevant? No longer correct? Are the things the Old Testament says is good/right/true still good/right/true?"

    --

    Are the terms of someone's land contract for a house that they used to own correct, good/right/true?

    Your questions indicates that you do not understand the concept of the meaning "Old" and "New" covenants. The New fulfilled the Old through Jesus Christ and has been replaced. The Old Covenant is obsolete.

    Is the Old Testament relevant? Certainly, but it depends on what you mean by relevant and what the context of the specific scripture is. The scriptures in the Old Testament cover many different areas, from history, poetry, prayer, law, and prophecy. But, God's dealings with mankind today is according to the New Covenant, not the Old. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law, so that he replaced nearly all of the law and temple ordinances himself. God is certainly not a "a vindictive, blood-thirsty tyrant". Your reading your own emotions and motives into the text.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Neal -

    The Old Covenant is obsolete.

    Okay. So we don't actually have to abide by the rules laid down in the Old Testament? The Ten Commandments, for instance?

    Is the Old Testament relevant? Certainly, but it depends on what you mean by relevant and what the context of the specific scripture is. The scriptures in the Old Testament cover many different areas, from history, poetry, prayer, law, and prophecy.

    Law, let's take law. The Old Testament lays down a lot of laws, I'm sure you'll agree. And ones which we today would probably find odd or even barbaric. How can this be? Why would God put laws in place if he later intended them to be discarded? How can it be that something (let's take slavery) is morally bad, and yet years later, is morally fine?

    God is certainly not a "a vindictive, blood-thirsty tyrant". Your reading your own emotions and motives into the text.

    Am I? So when God orders the genocide of several tribes right down to their pets and livestock he is not behaving in a blood-thirsty manner?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Ritchie: "A perfect example of which is what you just quoted. You just gave me a few lines exchanged between Pilate and Jesus. But how do you know they are right? How do you know they are the words they ACTUALLY spoke? They were, after all, written down by fallible, limited men who make mistakes."

    This is faulty logic. I didn't say the accounts weren't dead on, just that real people in real experiences wrote it. In the story you pointed to about David, culturally at the time anytime someone died they thought God did it. It wouldn't be so outrageous for the author to conclude that God struck the newborn down. Years of Christian Theology have concluded that although God can intervene, sometimes the natural order of things just occurs.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Ritchie: "In the meantime, to merely dismiss bits of the Bible you don't like/understand with 'Well, maybe the authors made a mistake there', whilst endorsing the bits you DO like with 'It must be true - it says so in the Bible' is just trying to have your cake and eat it."

    Wow, this sounds a whole lot like your theory of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  121. UR -

    This is faulty logic. I didn't say the accounts weren't dead on, just that real people in real experiences wrote it.

    Right.

    In the story you pointed to about David, culturally at the time anytime someone died they thought God did it. It wouldn't be so outrageous for the author to conclude that God struck the newborn down. Years of Christian Theology have concluded that although God can intervene, sometimes the natural order of things just occurs.

    Yes, exactly! Follow that train of logic!

    What we are now proposing is that David's child simply died a natural death, and the superstitious people of the time attributed it to God and maybe even wrote a story about why David might deserve to have his child die ("the child was convieved in adulterous rape. How awful. No wonder it died. David deserved it. God is just after all, etc,").

    What we have is a superstitious people attributing entirely natural events to supernatural causes.

    Let's do it again with Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe they were towns destroyed by entirely natural earthquakes/volcanic activity, and the stories written by superstitious men as to why they might have deserved such a grisly fate.

    Or how about something from the New Testament: the virgin birth of Jesus. Could this not be a popular piece of superstition attributed to an entirely natural birth?

    This pretty much sums up my opinion on the whole of the Bible - superstitious people documenting entirely natural events through supernatural stories (I know I said I did not believe Jesus existed at all, and I don't, but I am willing to concede there might have been a real, ENTIRELY HUMAN person ontop of whom all this Messianic mythology got piled).

    It would be extremely inconsistent to dismiss some Bible stories (such as David's child) as 'probably not completely accurate' and yet claiming other, equally implausible, passages, such as genesis, the ten commandments or the resurrection, as utterly reliable. This is just picking and choosing - giving yourself a get-out clause to dismiss bits of the Bible that you can't paint in a flattering light.

    Wow, this sounds a whole lot like your theory of evolution.

    No, that is a misconception put about by ID-ers such as Cornelius.

    There is no scientific plaudits to be had from simply towing the party line. If a scientist spends his life affirming the beliefs of the status quo, he will never achieve renown.

    Great scientists are made of people who go against the grain - who strike out on radical new ideas - and are proved to be right. That's the great thing about science, it doesn't matter if everyone else in the world disagrees with you - if you have evidence on your side you can SHOW your peers they are wrong.

    IF the theory of evolution was a flawed theory then the person who showed that to be the case would be one of the most renowned scientists of all time. But that is not likely to happen because, despite what Cornelius or silly ID websites say, there simply is no evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution.

    ID is not a scientific theory. It has absolutely zero supporting evidence and exists purely so that religious people can attribute the existence of life itself to their god of choice. It is not science, it is purely religion.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Ritchie, I'm saying that the Biblical accounts are right on. Our understanding may be lacking sometimes, but this is not an excuse to read into the text highly speculative and unfounded interpretations. But the Bible works. I've found it to be true in my life and those that seriously follow it.

    There are some very strong reasons for believing that Jesus was whom He said he was and miracles really did happen just as it says. The immense growth of Christianity into millions within one generation after the ressurrection is a testimony to how believable its contemporary witnesses were. It was not accomplished through force or holy wars but through people being persuaded by the gospel message and seeing miracles for themselves.

    As far as science... as knowledge increases its theories should get better. Evolutionists are stuck in 19th century ignorance. They hit a wall of facts that contradict their theory and are unwilling to move forward. The future of biology belongs in the Design paradigm . Stupid and trivial presumptions such as junk-dna and vestigal organs and such have no place in hard core systems biology in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Tedford the idiot said...

    As far as science... as knowledge increases its theories should get better. Evolutionists are stuck in 19th century ignorance. They hit a wall of facts that contradict their theory and are unwilling to move forward. The future of biology belongs in the Design paradigm . Stupid and trivial presumptions such as junk-dna and vestigal organs and such have no place in hard core systems biology in the future


    There goes Tedford the idiot channeling Baghdad Bob again.

    Seriously Tedford, you need to get a new writer.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Tedford:

    The immense growth of Christianity into millions within one generation after the ressurrection

    You're just making that up, aren't you? I've seen estimates of about 10,000 at AD 100, and that's about 3 generations are his "resurrection".

    ReplyDelete
  125. Damn, Jesus must have changed my "after" into "are"...

    ReplyDelete
  126. Neal -

    Ritchie, I'm saying that the Biblical accounts are right on

    With respect, no you aren't. You are saying the bits you like are 'right on'. The bits you don't like you just find reasons to dismiss.

    Our understanding may be lacking sometimes, but this is not an excuse to read into the text highly speculative and unfounded interpretations.

    I can give you many, many examples of God behaving in a vindictive, blood-thirst and unjust manner. So I don't think it is 'highly speculative' or 'unfounded' to call him vindictive, blood-thirsty or unjust.

    But the Bible works. I've found it to be true in my life and those that seriously follow it.

    Found it to be true in your life? What does that even mean? You have found, in your life, solid, tangible evidence that the historical and supernatural claims of the Bible are objectively true?

    I'm sure you mean something closer to 'I have found that I can live well according to my interpretation of the Bible'. But this is true for every religion, every moral code, on Earth.

    There are some very strong reasons for believing that Jesus was whom He said he was and miracles really did happen just as it says.

    Are there? What are they? I would dearly like to know.

    The immense growth of Christianity into millions within one generation after the ressurrection is a testimony to how believable its contemporary witnesses were.

    1) Where are you getting these figures from? Millions within a single generation seems highly implausible to me.

    2) Even if true, this does not, in fact, say anything about the veracity of the claims. It just says a great number of people were willing to accept it. But so what? The truth of a claim is not at all reflected in how many people believe it.

    As far as science... as knowledge increases its theories should get better. Evolutionists are stuck in 19th century ignorance. They hit a wall of facts that contradict their theory and are unwilling to move forward. The future of biology belongs in the Design paradigm . Stupid and trivial presumptions such as junk-dna and vestigal organs and such have no place in hard core systems biology in the future.

    This is just utterly wrong through and through. The theory of evolution has progressed and developed significantly throughout the twentieth century. There are, quite simply, no facts which contradict evolution. The design 'paradigm' is not science. It is religion. A transparent attempt to credit an entirely hypothetical being with the creation of life. Nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Ritchie said, "There are, quite simply, no facts which contradict evolution. "

    --

    Except there is NO observed evidence that genuine evolution has ever taken place in history. Bird birds, peppered moths, and e-coli and such are NOT examples of evolution. Evolution requires unbounded and directional change for which no one has provided one observed example. Bird beaks and such no more support evolutionary theory than a flat field in your backyard supports a flat earth theory.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Tedford the idiot said...

    Ritchie said, "There are, quite simply, no facts which contradict evolution. "

    Except there is NO observed evidence that genuine evolution has ever taken place in history. Bird birds, peppered moths, and e-coli and such are NOT examples of evolution.


    Go ahead idiot, tell us what WOULD qualify as an example of "genuine" evolution, and why.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "Great scientists are made of people who go against the grain - who strike out on radical new ideas - and are proved to be right."

    Perfect description of ID. :)

    ReplyDelete
  130. Rithcie: "IF the theory of evolution was a flawed theory then the person who showed that to be the case would be one of the most renowned scientists of all time."

    This statement makes me doubt that you have even read ORigin of the Species. All throughout the book Darwin makes if/then statements about certain facts that would make his theory WRONG. Many of those have already come to pass, one of which is the fact that we have thousands more fossils than we did when Darwin wrote the book and we still have no transitional species.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

    "The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature."

    Charles Darwin.



    We have unearthed millions more fossils and this is still an objection!!

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

    This sounds an awful lot like the ID acusers. We don't really find any transitional species in the strata, so we really don't have any evidence for my theory, but we are going to believe it anyway and come up with a bunch of make believe reasons for why we can't find any fossil evidence.

    Yeah, that's science BABY!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  132. Darwin said infinitely numerous transitional species but I would just be happen with one or two REAL ones, not the made up stuff the current scientist give that are missing, oh about a few million gradual steps!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  133. Ultimate Reality said...

    "Great scientists are made of people who go against the grain - who strike out on radical new ideas - and are proved to be right."

    Perfect description of ID. :)


    All except for that last part, the one you guys fail miserably on.

    "They laughed at Newton. They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

    Maybe if you guys took off the big red nose and produced some actual research positive results you'd get somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  134. I got some irreducible complexity for you with my cell example. Poke a tiny hole in the membrane and the whole thing falls apart. It has to exist wholly or it can't exist at all. EVERY cell ALIVE on the planet today came from another wholly existing cell!!! And you can follow that back millions of years. Without that first cell, you have nothing!!

    ReplyDelete
  135. Ultimate Reality said...

    Darwin said infinitely numerous transitional species but I would just be happen with one or two REAL ones, not the made up stuff the current scientist give that are missing, oh about a few million gradual steps!!!!


    A few selected transitional fossils

    Feel free to provide your reasons and evidence for why these well documented transitional sequences don't count.

    ReplyDelete
  136. UR -

    Except there is NO observed evidence that genuine evolution has ever taken place in history. Bird birds, peppered moths, and e-coli and such are NOT examples of evolution.

    Wrong on every count. They all demonstrate evolutionary mechanisms.

    Perfect description of ID. :)

    Still missing the 'proved to be right' bit...

    This statement makes me doubt that you have even read ORigin of the Species. All throughout the book Darwin makes if/then statements about certain facts that would make his theory WRONG. Many of those have already come to pass,

    ToE has been FALSIFIED? What evidence do you think falsifies it?

    ...one of which is the fact that we have thousands more fossils than we did when Darwin wrote the book and we still have no transitional species.

    This makes me doubt you understand the theory of evolution at all. EVERY species is transitional - transitional between its ancestors and it descendants. That's kinda the point.

    We have unearthed millions more fossils and this is still an objection!!

    Not a valid one it isn't. We DO have transitional species. Every species that ever lived and reproduced was transitional.

    Darwin said infinitely numerous transitional species but I would just be happen with one or two REAL ones, not the made up stuff the current scientist give that are missing, oh about a few million gradual steps!!!!

    Pardon?

    Be really specific here - what precisely are you looking for? What do you think a transitional fossil IS?

    I got some irreducible complexity for you with my cell example. Poke a tiny hole in the membrane and the whole thing falls apart. It has to exist wholly or it can't exist at all. EVERY cell ALIVE on the planet today came from another wholly existing cell!!! And you can follow that back millions of years. Without that first cell, you have nothing!!

    Do you know the difference between a protein and a cell?

    ReplyDelete
  137. UR, one of the best transitionals that they proudly boasted of just eight years ago was the Tiktaalik, a fossil that evolutionists claimed was a transitional from fish to walking animals.... Then full fledged foot prints were found predating the Taktaalic by millions of years according to later researchers. When examples like this are pointed out, then evolutionists like to point out the very broad definition of "transitionals". I think transitionals now includes 23rd cousins, fifth removed. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  138. Tedford the idiot said...

    UR, one of the best transitionals that they proudly boasted of just eight years ago was the Tiktaalik, a fossil that evolutionists claimed was a transitional from fish to walking animals.... Then full fledged foot prints were found predating the Taktaalic by millions of years according to later researchers. When examples like this are pointed out, then evolutionists like to point out the very broad definition of "transitionals". I think transitionals now includes 23rd cousins, fifth removed.


    A transitional fossil between two different species means it shows some of the traits of both. It does not mean those animals are necessarily related in a direct lineage.

    It's a pity Tedford that you're too stupid and lazy to bother learning the proper definition of scientific terms. But then again you're an idiot, so maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Neal -

    UR, one of the best transitionals that they proudly boasted of just eight years ago was the Tiktaalik, a fossil that evolutionists claimed was a transitional from fish to walking animals....

    That's right. That's what Tiktaalik is - essentially a 'fish' with the ability to clamber out of water like a primitive amphibian.

    Then full fledged foot prints were found predating the Taktaalic by millions of years according to later researchers.

    So what? What exactly do you think this shows?

    All it shows is that Tiktaalik was not the absolute first species to ever climb out of the water - which was a claim that no-one made anyway.

    Tiktaalik remains a beautiful example of exactly the sort of fossil evidence Creationists have been insisting does not exist for years.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Ritchie, evolutionary articles at the time made sure to point out that the first walker Tiktaalik fossil was found in the age of rock that they had predicted for the first walkler. Later research indicated that it was supposedly preceeded by the first walker by millions of years.

    Evolutionary predictions are like a boy predicting that a gumball machine filled with various colors will have a red gumball right in the middle layer.

    ReplyDelete
  141. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Neal -

    Ritchie, evolutionary articles at the time made sure to point out that the first walker Tiktaalik fossil was found in the age of rock that they had predicted for the first walkler.

    Neal, show me an article that makes the claim that Tiktaalik was the first vertirate to walk the land. I challenge you.

    The team who discovered Tiktaalik were LOOKING for the first land-walking vertibrates. And Tiktaalik filled a niche in our fossil record both geographically and biologically. At it's time of discovery, is was simply the closest we have ever come to the first vertibrate to ever walk the land...

    Later research indicated that it was supposedly preceeded by the first walker by millions of years.

    Yes, that is exactly the way science works - people keep making discoveries which refines our knowledge. There is nothing wrong with that. No-one ever made the claim that Tiktaalik was the very first land-walker (if you got that impression from anywhere then that is your own silly fault), and Tiktaalik is STILL a transitional fossil.

    You know - those things you said didn't exist a few posts ago.

    Evolutionary predictions are like a boy predicting that a gumball machine filled with various colors will have a red gumball right in the middle layer.

    I have no idea what you're talking about here. I doubt you do either, really.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Thorton said: A few transitional fossils

    HA, ha, ha, ha, ha, LMBO...

    Warning 1: The images are only ARTIST'S CONCEPTIONS and MIGHT CONTAIN ERROS; so I keep a page with links to photos or diagrams of the fossils themselves.

    Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two.

    ReplyDelete
  144. ...And you think IDers believe in fairy tales????

    ReplyDelete
  145. Thorton: "A transitional fossil between two different species means it shows some of the traits of both. It does not mean those animals are necessarily related in a direct lineage."

    Your new Darwidiot definition, but not what Darwin had in mind. We have Ape fossils. We have Man fossils. But curiously we have no "inbetweeners". Your theory is a pipe dream. You are so foolish to believe that TofE hatched atheism. It was the other way around. People became their own God's and they needed to make some stuff up to explain this whole mess of life we see around us. Deny God first, hatch stupid, baseless, evidence-less theory to justify denial of God. What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  146. I just love this page...

    http://www.discovery.org/a/1106

    ReplyDelete
  147. UR -

    Warning 1: The images are only ARTIST'S CONCEPTIONS and MIGHT CONTAIN ERROS; so I keep a page with links to photos or diagrams of the fossils themselves.

    What's funny about that? Surely that's just stating the obvious?

    Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two.

    Again, yes that is what a transitional fossil is. What's the problem there?

    Your new Darwidiot definition, but not what Darwin had in mind.

    This definition is not new at all. And how do you know what Darwin had in mind?

    We have Ape fossils. We have Man fossils. But curiously we have no "inbetweeners".

    Yes we do. We have lots. There were six in the link Thornton just gave - Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis. All these are transitional fossils between humans and the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees.

    You are so foolish to believe that TofE hatched atheism. It was the other way around

    No, neither are true. The theory of evolution and atheism are completely unrelated. ToE is a scientific thery which neither invokes nor requires atheism. There are plenty of people around the world who accept ToE and yet still retain a belief in God, including the previous Pope who officially declared that Christian faith and the theory of evolution are not in conflict.

    This involves, I suppose, the assumption that God is working THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION. It is true that the theory of evolution certainly REQUIRES no belief in God, and, like all scientific theories, it will not accept 'It was a miracle' as part of its explanatory process. But if you want to believe evolution is one of the tools God uses to keep the world in check, then that's just fine and dandy. Evolution does not equal atheism.

    I just love this page...

    That, it appears, is because you don't WANT to understand evolution. You have a vested interest in seeing it shown to be incorrect. And you are clinging to sites which appear to prove such a point. This is confirmation bias again.

    Every single one of those conclusions (and, often, questions too) is fallacious. And as long as you cling to it as absolute fact just because it fits the truth you WANT to believe and never critically analyse the claims the article makes, you will never realise that it is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Ritchie: "And as long as you cling to it as absolute fact just because it fits the truth you WANT to believe and never critically analyse the claims the article makes, you will never realise that it is wrong."

    I think Thorton would call this projecting your own issues on the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  149. UR -

    I think Thorton would call this projecting your own issues on the other side.

    I disagree. I think it is a perfectly description of what you are doing. I think projection is what you ID-ers do.

    But can we, at least agree that IN PRINCIPLE, we should approach ideas sceptically? That we should look to FALSIFY our arguments if we want to be sure that they are true? That we should put our ideas to the test and see how they fare under rigorous sceptical analysis? Can we agree that this is how science SHOULD be, not matter which one of us is guilty of breaking it?

    ReplyDelete
  150. Ultimate Reality said...

    We have Ape fossils. We have Man fossils. But curiously we have no "inbetweeners".

    Ritchie: "Yes we do. We have lots. There were six in the link Thornton just gave - Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis. All these are transitional fossils between humans and the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees."


    Add to that list the recently discovered Australopithecus Sediba with all its transitional features. It's the best candidate yet to be on the direct lineage to modern humans.

    I don't know why Creationists think it's better to yell "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!!" instead of doing a 10 second Google search. Laziness I suppose, or maybe fear of what they will find.

    ReplyDelete
  151. UR, good link.

    http://www.discovery.org/a/1106

    "Inherit the Spin"

    As CH noted previously. Evolutionary "evidence" is like using a flat field to prove a flat earth.

    Evolutionary theory is a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Tedford the idiot said...

    Evolutionary theory is a mess.


    The Flintstones cartoon version of evolutionary theory you've concocted in your own tiny idiot head is a mess.

    Actual evolutionary theory is strong, vibrant, and doing fine.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Neal -

    As CH noted previously. Evolutionary "evidence" is like using a flat field to prove a flat earth.

    Support that simile. How is that comparison even remotely applicable?

    Evolutionary theory is a mess.

    No it isn't. It's easy to misrepresent an idea if you don't want to believe it to make it sound silly. And that's what ID-ers spend ALL their time doing.

    I suppose they've got to fill up their time somehow. It's not like they can possibly find any positive evidence for ID, since their hypothesis actively prevents them from doing absolutely any science whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Ritchie: "Support that simile. How is that comparison even remotely applicable?"

    It is about seeing a super small portion of something and then inventing a whole world theory based on a tiny sample. Extrapolation gone wild!!!

    It's about not seeing the big picture, but making up the big picture anyway and wrongly so.

    ReplyDelete
  155. ultimate moron, your entire religious beliefs are a made up picture.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Wow, there sure is a lot of deranged religious tard in this thread.

    Just to touch on a few things:

    ur said:

    "My psychosis is worldwide, because your lack of belief in God puts you in the 1%."

    This may surprise you but your religious beliefs are not the only ones world wide, and many people have no religious beliefs. Besides, popularity doesn't equal validity, and I'd much rather be in the smaller percentage and be sane than in the larger one and be nuts. You're right about one thing though. Guess which one.

    I just remembered something else that you've obviously never realized. Many religious people accept that evolution is real.

    ur said:

    "Years of Christian Theology have concluded that although God can intervene, sometimes the natural order of things just occurs."

    Which version of "Christian Theology"? And there you go appealing to popularity AND authority. Neither one supports your claims. By the way, exactly how can it be determined when "God" can (or does) intervene and when it's just "the natural order of things"?

    "Christian Theology" is a joke. It's like completely nutty mental patients diagnosing their own mental problems and then claiming that they're sane.

    "Great scientists are made of people who go against the grain - who strike out on radical new ideas - and are proved to be right."

    To which ur responded:

    "Perfect description of ID. :)"

    Well, the ideas of you IDiots are certainly radical but they're also certainly not proven to be right and never will be. And one of the things your agenda is missing is great scientists or any any scientists doing any scientific work on ID. Attacking science, scientists, evolution, evolutionary theory, Darwin, "Darwinists", atheists, materialists, naturalists, etc., etc., etc., isn't the same as doing actual scientific work on ID.

    ReplyDelete
  157. UR -

    It is about seeing a super small portion of something and then inventing a whole world theory based on a tiny sample. Extrapolation gone wild!!!

    I see. This would be the misunderstanding that you cannot extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution then?

    The simile doesn't quite work, however. There is a reason that a field would appear flat, but be on a round world. That makes perfect sense. However, there is no barrier to genetic drift, even a hypotheitcal one that has been identified or even suggested which could possibly stop microevolutionary changes becoming macroevolutionary ones.

    Evolution is a process, like walking. Say walking a short distance is 'microwalking' and walking a long distance is 'macrowalking'. Now, it's like you ID-ers are saying 'Yes, we accept microwalking happens, but not macrowalking. That never happens.'

    Is the fallacy easier to see now?

    ReplyDelete
  158. tedford said:

    "Ritchie, I'm saying that the Biblical accounts are right on. Our understanding may be lacking sometimes, but this is not an excuse to read into the text highly speculative and unfounded interpretations."

    Well then, exactly whose understanding and interpretation is founded and correct out of the millions?

    "But the Bible works. I've found it to be true in my life and those that seriously follow it."

    Which parts and interpretations of it?

    "There are some very strong reasons for believing that Jesus was whom He said he was and miracles really did happen just as it says."

    Yeah, if you need an imaginary crutch, and especially if you can make a good living promoting it.

    "The immense growth of Christianity into millions within one generation after the ressurrection is a testimony to how believable its contemporary witnesses were. It was not accomplished through force or holy wars but through people being persuaded by the gospel message and seeing miracles for themselves."

    Millions? Really? Contemporary witnesses? What witnesses? The ones that are made up just like the rest of the fairy tales?

    Hey neal, can you get your god to whip up a miracle to show that it can do one? How about parting Lake Superior, or bringing my favorite dead cat back to life? Tell you what, I'll settle for a free pizza, delivered of course, within the next hour. Your god should know my address. Heavy on the pepperoni please.

    "As far as science... as knowledge increases its theories should get better."

    They do get better. As far as religion... as knowledge increases it should be recognized for what it is (a delusional, superstitious, fairy tale crutch) and it should be discarded. Actually, it should have been discarded long ago.

    "Evolutionists are stuck in 19th century ignorance."

    Now that's funny! What century of ignorance are you godbots stuck in?

    "They hit a wall of facts that contradict their theory and are unwilling to move forward."

    Stop! You're cracking me up!

    You godbots have been going backward for thousands of years.

    "The future of biology belongs in the Design paradigm ."

    LOL. Dream on.

    "Stupid and trivial presumptions such as junk-dna and vestigal organs and such have no place in hard core systems biology in the future."

    Yeah, like you have the slightest clue about biology. Science is here to stay. Get used to it.

    ReplyDelete