Monday, April 29, 2013

Here is That Fish With Clear Blood

Another Falsification



Unlike most areas of science which ask “how?,” evolution, as Ernst Mayr was fond of pointing out, asks “why?” And these days evolutionists are asking themselves why a fish has clear blood. Yes the Ocellated Ice Fish (see the above video) has no hemoglobin. That makes it unique among all the organisms with bones. Hemoglobin is an incredible molecular machine that consists of two pairs of proteins all working together. In humans it transports oxygen from the lungs to the tissues and returns with carbon dioxide to be released. And for evolutionists, hemoglobin has been a textbook example of how the twentieth century’s molecular evidence confirms the fact of evolution. That has always been a problematic claim, but now even more so.

For decades it has been textbook orthodoxy that genes and proteins, when compared between different species, confirm the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, evolutionists George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008) tell the student that:

Comparing the hemoglobin amino acid sequence of different species with the human sequence in figure 17.7, you can see that species more closely related to humans have fewer differences in the amino acid structure of their hemoglobin. … Again, the prediction of evolutionary theory is strongly confirmed.

That is, and was in 2008, simply false. You can read more here. Below is another such claim by Johnson, this time co-authored with Peter Raven (Biology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2004).



While the “predicted pattern” that Johnson and Raven celebrated has long since been falsified, the Ocellated Ice Fish takes the falsification to a whole new level. These textbooks provide unambiguous evolutionary predictions that are undeniably false.

And if a successful prediction is taken as confirming a theory, then the later falsification of said prediction must pose problems for the theory.

In fact this finding of a fish with no hemoglobin—which even evolutionists admit is a mystery—is yet another of myriad examples of biological observations that most definitely do not fit the “expected pattern.”

Biologists have now coined a new phrase for these ever mounting evidences: Lineage specific biology. Lineage specific biology refers to biological structures and other observations that do not fit into an evolutionary tree pattern but rather are unique to a particular lineage, or even species.

Perhaps evolutionists need to start asking themselves why they believe the world spontaneously arose, in spite of the scientific evidence.

96 comments:

  1. Wow CH. You just disproved evolutionary theory for the 6734th time and they still haven't awarded you that Nobel Prize you so richly deserve!

    You should write a strongly worded letter to The Times. That will show 'em!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To any new reader

      The above post is published from our resident 12 year old antagonist. To confirm this assessment one only has to look to his former posts, his tone, his limited vocabulary in insults and the sheer quantity of posts in almost all blog posts that demonstrate he has copious amounts of free time.
      On more moderated blogs he would be classified as a troll.

      Many atheists and oponents of ID have had and do have worthwhile things to say but this poster is so seldom among them that his posts are routinely ignored by the author of this blog and many of its participants.

      You may safely skip his posts as we often do in responding to him

      Delete
    2. The offer extends to you too Elijah2012.

      Please feel free to give us your Creationist explanation for the data in the Sindall paper and Zhao paper.

      Show us what a real Creation Scientist can do!

      Delete
    3. Any fool can do that. The Designer decided to make it that way and we do not claim to know the mind of the Designer.

      Delete
  2. Oh, and for the people who actually care about honesty, CH's latest GOTCHA! find is no surprise. Scientists have know about the Channichthyidae, the family of hemoglobinless Antarctic icefishes, for a couple of decades now.

    Variable expression of myoglobin among the hemoglobinless Antarctic icefishes
    Sidell et al
    PNAS, vol. 94 no. 7. April 1997

    "Abstract: The important intracellular oxygen-binding protein, myoglobin (Mb), is thought to be absent from oxidative muscle tissues of the family of hemoglobinless Antarctic icefishes, Channichthyidae. Within this family of fishes, which is endemic to the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica, there exist 15 known species and 11 genera. To date, we have examined eight species of icefish (representing seven genera) using immunoblot analyses. Results indicate that Mb is present in heart ventricles from five of these species of icefish. Mb is absent from heart auricle and oxidative skeletal muscle of all species. We have identified a 0.9-kb mRNA in Mb-expressing species that hybridizes with a Mb cDNA probe from the closely related red-blooded Antarctic nototheniid fish, Notothenia coriiceps. In confirmation that the 0.9-kb mRNA encodes Mb, we report the full-length Mb cDNA sequence of the ocellated icefish, Chionodraco rastrospinosus. Of the eight icefish species examined, three lack Mb polypeptide in heart ventricle, although one of these expresses the Mb mRNA. All species of icefish retain the Mb gene in their genomic DNA. Based on phylogeny of the icefishes, loss of Mb expression has occurred independently at least three times and by at least two distinct molecular mechanisms during speciation of the family."

    But CH gets paid to attack real science with this Creationist stupidity, so he does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Now now. Implying others stupid is so not nice. I'm sure it worked well in middle school, but do you really want to be remembered for this? Not only that but the fact that you're watching this blog at all hours of every day says something very amusing. It's like "I'm going to watch this stupid thing every day because ___."
      Makes no sense unless Cornelius represents something way more than stupidity to a desperate reader.

      Delete
    3. MSEE, when you're done trying to impress people by telling them what a genius engineer you are, please feel free to give us your Creationist explanation for the data in the Sindall paper and Zhao paper.

      Delete
    4. I'm ready for a quote of me "telling them" anything superlative about my abilities. Now are you ready to drop the snideness and come across as anything but bitter and angry?

      Oh BTW it seems that, unlike creationists and Darwinians, ID advocates in their published writings don't make claims as to the genesis of the living world. Just thought I would straighten you out on that since you mistakenly label me a creationist.

      Hey I just read through the Domingo-Calap paper and have something for your posting: BTW MSEE, the 'random' part of 'random mutations' refers to their effect on the reproductive fitness of the individual who has the mutations. The probability distribution of the effects of mutations is not uniform but the process is still stochastic. This has been empirically demonstrated.

      But honestly I'm waiting for a willingness to transition to civility.

      Delete
    5. You forgot to give us your Creationist explanation for the Channichthyidae genetic data in the Sindell and Zhao papers.

      I'm waiting for a willingness to transition to civility.

      When you come in flaming like a pompous jackass why are you surprised when you're viewed as a pompous jackass?

      Delete
    6. MSEE,
      Oh BTW it seems that, unlike creationists and Darwinians, ID advocates in their published writings don't make claims as to the genesis of the living world


      Then it would be hypocritical to demand the same of the TOE,even in non published writings, correct?

      Of course if life is possible without a designer the whole rational for ID is in jeopardy , if it happened once it can happen

      If life is not possible without a designer at some point the must be a nondesigned designer, an Uncaused Cause.

      Delete
    7. We should register and market these names Velik : Life Designer (tm) and Uncaused Cause (tm)
      I suspect the business of life is not that easy and simple.


      The characteristic of life does not lie in a distinctiveness of single life processes, but rather in a certain order among all the processes.

      von Bertalanffy

      Delete
    8. Eugen,

      I suspect the business of life is not that easy and simple.


      That has certainly been my experience. Things are always more complicated than they seem,the deeper you dig.

      Delete
    9. Thorton:

      Good point about the other hemoglobinless Channichthyidae. It is quite an example of lineage-specific biology. The Ocellated Ice Fish differs even more with its clear blood (rather than opaque, light-colored blood). It definitely was a surprise, having been seen only once before. Another surprise is the recurrent absence of myoglobin expression, in distinct Channichthyidae. Another lineage-specific example.

      Delete
    10. msee said:

      "Oh BTW it seems that, unlike creationists and Darwinians, ID advocates in their published writings don't make claims as to the genesis of the living world."

      Actually, the so-called 'ID inference' totally relies on claims "as to the genesis of the living world" and the "genesis" and operation of the entire universe. Just ask joey g, belligerent IDiot extraordinaire. As he often says, "ID is ALL about origins.", and as can be easily seen on any IDiot website or in any IDiot publication, IDiots always resort to 'But where did it first come from?' 'How did _______ originate?' 'Explain how evolution created the first life forms!' 'Evolution couldn't have done it!' 'The designer (aka whatever so-called god they're imagining and worshiping) did it!'

      "Just thought I would straighten you out on that since you mistakenly label me a creationist."

      You obviously haven't read much of what IDiot-creationists say, or you're deliberately ignoring it. Yeah, IDiot-creationists. ALL of them believe in and promote a designer-creator-god. They have to, otherwise they would accept only natural processes and events and then they wouldn't be IDiot-creationists. NO ONE outside of the IDiot-creationist club is fooled by the deceitful substitution of 'designer' for 'creator' or 'God'.

      If you're not a creationist, what label do you apply to yourself?

      Delete
  3. Creationism sure beats dirt-worship and animism, Thortless. Or don't you think so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. paul, I seriously doubt that anyone here worships dirt. Oh, wait a second, you worship an imaginary god that allegedly created dirt and then specially created the first human from dirt and that allegedly specially created the second human from a rib of the dirt-man!

      Will you explain how worshiping an imaginary god that allegedly created dirt and then allegedly specially created a dirt-man and then a rib-woman from the dirt-man "beats" worshiping dirt?

      Delete
    2. And when it comes to animism, paul, it looks to me that you god pushers are the animists. After all, you believe that "God" created EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE by speaking it all into existence, and that "God" is IN everything and guides everything. In other words, you believe that 'God's spirit', 'God's essence', 'God's soul' is in and guides EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE. That makes you an animist.

      Delete
    3. Paul April 30, 2013 at 3:30 AM

      Creationism sure beats dirt-worship and animism, Thortless. Or don't you think so?


      In what way is it better if it isn't true?

      I don't get the 'worship' thing, either. I don't feel the need to 'worship' anything in particular. If I met some sort of super-intelligent and highly-advanced alien or even a god I would be fascinated to talk to them and try and learn a little of what they already knew - but 'worship' them? I don't think so.

      The other thing is that this 'worship' thing seems to be based on a concept of a god who needs this sort of adulation. But it's hard to square the concept of an infinitely-powerful, all-wise and loving god with a being so petty and narcissistic as to crave the adoration of paltry little creatures like ourselves. It just doesn't jibe.

      Delete
  4. Incidentally, or rather, very much to the point, you are Creationists, too. Only instead of before an omniscient, omnipotent God, your self-abasement is before a primordial soup of proteins and a bolt of lightning, blind chance and goodness know what other demiurges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You, guys, should try this tack in the next court case. I am sure such defense will work fabulously well.

      Delete
    2. You guys are obsessed with court cases because thats the only glimmer of hope you have. You've had the school system for decades and yet polls indicate the majority are still theists. Why should we be overly concerned with court cases. They are temporary. Governments make laws that rule over courts and Governments are elected by the majority. I personally don't sweat the small stuff. Most parents I know would love to yank their kids out of the public school system. I'd rather a voucher program pass and then it doesn't matter what your liberal judges say. Its game over since public schools with their incompetence in teaching in other areas would wither and die on the vine. :)

      Delete
    3. Oh, we're not obsessed with court cases, Elijah. Your side is. Poor Casey Luskin has written a ton of articles about the Dover case, just to show that it does not amount to hill of beans. LOL. By reminding you of Dover and other court disasters, we merely tease you gently.

      Delete
    4. Speaking of school vouchers, this is just hilarious! Christian right-wing republicans in Tennessee pushed hard for school vouchers that would allow people to send their kids to private religious schools. Until they realized that several Muslim schools would be covered under the program. Now they're freaking out and scrambling to stop "Christian" money from going to non-Christian use. As one Fundy legislator said:

      "“This is an issue we must address,” state Sen. Jim Tracy (R-Shelbyville) said. “I don’t know whether we can simply amend the bill in such a way that will fix the issue at this point.”

      Voucher bill could fund Muslim schools

      ...and these idiots still wonder why the rest of the country laughs at them.

      Delete
    5. Oleg sorry man. LOL. You think we'd rather win court cases or have the vast majority on our side. Thats hilarious :) The world has enough people in it that you will find groups surrounding any topic. I know ton load more religious people than you do and not a one I know even talks about court cases. Its is relevant to some who have children in public schools but

      A) many of us don't as we moved out children to private schools and home schooling (which are shown to be better) because public schools mostly sucked for other reasons.

      B) many don't have children or their children are past high school.

      SO if it entertains you to think that you are teasing us while we laugh at you in the minority feel free. Anything to make it suck less I guess. ;)

      Delete
    6. "...and these idiots still wonder why the rest of the country laughs at them."

      :) lol more hilarity from thorton. You live in a country where the VAST majority are Theists and you are trying to fool yourself the country is laughing at them and not you?

      as for the rest - read it and weep

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/indiana-school-vouchers

      many states are considering it

      http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/4_30_13_school_choice_voucher_california_education/

      You were so busy thumping your chest about a Dover battle you forgot that public schools suck and you are likely to lose the war. Who cares about public schools if no one has to go to them?



      Delete
    7. I don't think that public schools suck in general. My child was in the public school system from grade K to 12 and went on to an elite private college.

      There are good public schools and there are bad public schools. Just like there are good and bad charter schools. In fact, there is no evidence that charters schools work better on average. They are not the panacea conservatives hold them to be.

      Delete
    8. We can throw links around all day

      http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/25/charter-schools-are-they-better-public-schools

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/156974/private-schools-top-marks-educating-children.aspx

      Theres no question there are good public schools but the sheer economics of an open market place will ensure that the bad schools are removed where bad public schools are assured of continued financial support. Thats what causes public school to suck more than private? Who would pay just to have poor education? The voucher issue is that parents get to shop and make those choices. In districts where the schools are good the public school will survive.

      However theres no doubt about it. In many districts it would render the whole only teach evolution versus alternatives court wrangling into a moot point.

      Delete
    9. Not sure why Americans allow other people (politicians) to decide how their children are educated. Do they ask politicians which market to purchase food? The American public schools don't teach the most important thing, good Christian values.

      Delete
    10. marcus, do you mean "good Christian values" like rape, pillaging, slavery, war, racism, incest, conquest, genocide, ecocide, culture destruction, fear, masochism, misogyny, oppression, abuse, bigotry, prejudice, homophobia, expulsion, exclusion, coercion, threats of punishment, misery, death, and eternal torment in a lake of fire, smiting, plagues, hypocrisy, lying, breaking promises, pomposity, hysteria, distortions of reality, brainwashing and indoctrinating children and gullible adults with impossible, malicious, sadistic fairy tales, etc., like yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost command and/or carry out personally according to the bible, and much of which millions of 'good christians' have actually done and/or are doing and will continue to do 'in the name of God'?

      Delete
    11. one of the stupidest rhetoric devices in the atheist playbook -

      "hey look at these people who did this in the name of the most popular religion in the world. That proves the religion itself is to blame for anything they do even if it violates the teaching of that religion"

      - "indoctrinating children and gullible adults with impossible, malicious, sadistic fairy tales"

      Theres no reason to bring evolution into this


      Delete
    12. The whole truth, all of those items you list have been refuted by educated Christian apologists year after year. Search Ravi Zacharias if you want each of those items answered. A good question to ask yourself, What would it take for me to believe God exists? And then ask God to make Himself known to you.

      Delete
    13. elijah said without thinking:

      one of the stupidest rhetoric devices in the atheist playbook -

      "hey look at these people who did this in the name of the most popular religion in the world. That proves the religion itself is to blame for anything they do even if it violates the teaching of that religion"

      -----------

      The religion and the people who believe in and practice it are to blame. You obviously have never read the bible, or you would see that the bible (the "word of God" and the basis and rule book for christianity) endorses, teaches, and/or commands all of the things I listed above and then some.

      The bible isn't just whatever convenient parts you pick out of it that make you feel good and superior. It's a manual for how to dominate, coerce, threaten, scare, abuse, rape, enslave, destroy, lie, steal, conquer, expel, brainwash, oppress, kill, and make shit up, etc., etc., etc.

      Delete
    14. marcus said:

      "The whole truth, all of those items you list have been refuted by educated Christian apologists year after year. Search Ravi Zacharias if you want each of those items answered."

      I don't have to look because I know that those things cannot be "refuted" in the way you're implying, because the only way to allegedly "refute" those things would be by making up even more lies and fairy tales.

      "A good question to ask yourself, What would it take for me to believe God exists? And then ask God to make Himself known to you."

      Why should anyone who isn't paranoid and gullible ask themselves those questions? Tell you what, have yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost or any other 'God' stop by my place with a large pepperoni pizza within the next 30 minutes and tell it to bring some cute female angels along. Surely any 'God' worth its salt can easily manage such a trivial task, right? If you don't see this comment within the next 30 minutes or can't get through to 'God' right away because its prayer line is busy just ask it when you do get ahold of it to turn back time so that it can show up here within the next 30 minutes.

      Delete
  5. In court, certain plausibility criteria are assumed. Naturalistic UCA doesn't have anything to do with plausibility criteria with respect to teleology. It's considered plausible, if at all, as compared to a-teleological alternatives only. This is CH's main point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,
      Naturalistic UCA doesn't have anything to do with plausibility criteria with respect to teleology. It's considered plausible, if at all, as compared to a-teleological alternatives only


      Curious, why is UCA intrinctly a- teleological, in your view? Certainly TEs believe it is compatible with a teleological force.

      As for the court, it ruled with teleological plausibity criteria. That ID and the school board were attempting to introduce creationism covertly into the school system. This is a prohibited activity.

      Delete
    2. V: Curious, why is UCA intrinctly a- teleological, in your view?

      J: I said there "Naturalistic UCA." I'm not suggesting thereby that teleologically-guided UCA isn't a logical possibility.

      V: As for the court, it ruled with teleological plausibity criteria.

      J: Seems to me it's standard inductive plausibility criteria. When a set of actions can be parsimoniously explained by a motive, but no so parimoniously otherwise, that's just standard inductive plausibility criteria.

      V: That ID and the school board were attempting to introduce creationism covertly into the school system. This is a prohibited activity.

      J: It's not prohibited by law. It's prohibited by case "law." Moreover, it can't be logical to prohibit telling students about a book in their own school library unless the book shouldn't be in the library in the first place. That's just idiotic. Did the court order the book to be removed from the library?

      Delete
    3. Jeff,
      I said there "Naturalistic UCA." I'm not suggesting thereby that teleologically-guided UCA isn't a logical possibility


      Then a designer could create natural conditions which result in a " naturalistic" UCA, it seems to me. Is there any way to deduce the telos or plan?

      J: Seems to me it's standard inductive plausibility criteria. When a set of actions can be parsimoniously explained by a motive, but no so parimoniously otherwise, that's just standard inductive plausibility criteria.

      I stand corrected

      It's not prohibited by law. It's prohibited by case "law."

      Based on the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, a law.


      Moreover, it can't be logical to prohibit telling students about a book in their own school library unless the book shouldn't be in the library in the first place.

      It doesn't prohibit that, you just can't teach creationism in public schools in science class.

      That's just idiotic. Did the court order the book to be removed from the library?

      Beats me, do kids actually go the the library any more?

      Delete
    4. Hey jeff, if you believe in one "God" you're actually a UCA-ist, since you would believe that everything, everywhere (the entire universe, not just living things) all descended from that one "God", right?

      But wait, the so-called "God" you apparently believe in is three persons, entities, beings, ghosts, or whatever they're called, so which one is everything's ancestor? Is it yhwh, jesus, or the holy ghost, or did all three get in on the action and do some separate creating? And what about satan? Did it create some things separately, like evil people and other icky stuff, or was all of the creating, including the creation of satan, evil people, and other icky stuff, done by yhwh, jesus, and/or the holy ghost?

      Delete
    5. V: Then a designer could create natural conditions which result in a " naturalistic" UCA, it seems to me.

      J: The issue there is that we don't know it's logically possible in one particular sense. Namely, if you choose to accept that most of earth history events were totally naturalistic (i.e., no libertarian free-will involved), then there's no way yet to know if what is being posited for biological variation possibilities is consistent with other "laws" of physics. The history, IOW, was one history (if science can get at it at all).

      But you guys keep telling me that the plasticity of biological variation can render myriads of trees characteristic of radical plasticity in the posited time-frame for different successions of conditions.

      But the "laws" of nature can only explain one tree at most. We know nothing yet that can help us get that very low probability up. And that low probability is based on a mere assumption that the posited degree of plasticity for the time-frame is possible. We known nothing that renders that assumption plausible.

      V: Is there any way to deduce the telos or plan?

      J: No, not exactly. But some "ends" can't even be resisted by naturalists. You will hear them speak with "eyes for seeing" all the time.

      V "It's not prohibited by law. It's prohibited by case "law.""

      Based on the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, a law.

      J: But that clause just forbids the Federal Congress from legislating one way or another. It doesn't say or imply a thing about States. And there's plenty of statements by those in the time period who admit to just that. A usurpation of a "Court" is mere case "law."

      V: Beats me, do kids actually go the the library any more?

      J: I say we quit wasting the money then. There are starving and otherwise poor people in the world.

      Delete
    6. Jeff,
      But that clause just forbids the Federal Congress from legislating one way or another. It doesn't say or imply a thing about States


      True,however The Fourteenth has something to say about that,

      "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      A usurpation of a "Court" is mere case "law"

      " The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"

      "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,"

      No more usurpation than the powers granted to the other coequal branches of Government by the law.

      Delete
    7. V: Beats me, do kids actually go the the library any more?

      J: I say we quit wasting the money then. There are starving and otherwise poor people in the world.


      Relax,I just asked.

      Delete
    8. V: True,however The Fourteenth has something to say about that,

      "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      J: Which phrase that you quoted there says or implies that States could no longer make their own laws about whether a teacher could say which book in a school library deals with what question? Or for that matter, whether that book could legally be placed IN a school library?

      V: " The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"

      "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,"

      No more usurpation than the powers granted to the other coequal branches of Government by the law.

      J: You haven't yet shown that the constitution granted the federal government with the legislative power that you're talking about. And without that, the federal courts have no constitutional jurisdiction in the matter. The 1st amendment explicitly DENIES that legislative power to the FEDERAL Congress.

      V: Relax,I just asked.

      J: I just commented. If you can respond off topic, so can I. Here's the thing, V. You're a smart guy. You know it's idiotic to allow a book in the library that you can't speak about in that same school. Only morons get that arbitrary in their legalism.

      Delete
    9. Jeff,
      Which phrase that you quoted there says or implies that States could no longer make their own laws about whether a teacher could say which book in a school library deals with what question?


      Which phrase that you quoted there says or implies that States could no longer make their own laws about whether a teacher could say which book in a school library deals with what question?

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

      All the people in the country have to right to live without a state sponsored religion

      Fourteenth amendment says any right you have under the federal level,the states cannot deny or override.

      Any student is free to read anything they like, but since the teacher is a agent of the state, as is the school board, they cannot promote religious beliefs. The court found teaching ID was " establishing a religion by the government"

      You haven't yet shown that the constitution granted the federal government with the legislative power that you're talking about. And without that, the federal courts have no constitutional jurisdiction in the matter. The 1st amendment explicitly DENIES that legislative power to the FEDERAL Congress

      Not the first, tenth" The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people"

      Which is modified by the fourteenth" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      One of those immunities is to be free of state established religion.

      You know it's idiotic to allow a book in the library that you can't speak about in that same school. Only morons get that arbitrary in their legalism.

      You can speak about it ,the kids can read it, you just can't put the state endorsement behind it,which using it as a textbook does.It promotes a particular religious belief. You are just mad because it is your belief.

      Here's the thing, V. You're a smart guy,Here's the thing, V. You're a smart guy, Here's the thing, V. You're a smart guy

      Music to my ears

      Delete
    10. V: Which phrase that you quoted there says or implies that States could no longer make their own laws about whether a teacher could say which book in a school library deals with what question?

      J: Any question.

      V: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

      J: Congress is the Federal legislature.

      V: All the people in the country have to right to live without a state sponsored religion

      J: But not because of the Federal constitution.

      V: Fourteenth amendment says any right you have under the federal level,the states cannot deny or override.

      J: That's where you're confused. The supremacy clause already said that beforehand. And yet it didn't give the Federal government jurisdiction in religious legislation at the State level. The 14th amendment wording changes none of that. The 14th amendment essentially applied the jurisprudence of the comity clause to all persons born in the U.S. It did this by creating a national citizenship that did not exist theretofore. And BTW, the 14th amendment was never legally ratified. But that's no big deal, actually, so long as usurpations aren't done in its name, as they are continually. Raoul Berger's book "Government by Judiciary" is the most thorough work on that subject.

      V: Any student is free to read anything they like, but since the teacher is a agent of the state, as is the school board, they cannot promote religious beliefs. The court found teaching ID was " establishing a religion by the government"

      J: The court was moronic. Saying that a different inference as to the cause of certain biological events is articulated in a certain book in the school's library is not an endorsement. Nor is it a religion in the sense of the 1st amendment. That definition of religion had to do with what can be "exercised." Inferring design in biology doesn't imply a thing about moral practice or any other such beliefs which can be "exercised."

      V: Not the first, tenth" The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people"

      Which is modified by the fourteenth" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      J: You haven't demonstrated a thing relevant to Dover by that quotation. What phrase in that quotation implies that a State could no longer legislate as they wished (consistently with their State constitution) on the issue of Dover?

      V: One of those immunities is to be free of state established religion.

      J: It doesn't say that. And all the legislative history shows it had nothing to do with it. The issue was the Civil Rights Bill of 1865(?). And that Bill had nothing to do with absolute rights in the first place. It only implied that "fundamental rights" granted by States could not be granted in a discriminatory way with respect to race. That's why it's just like the comity clause "bill of rights." For that jurisprudence functioned the exact same way.

      V: You can speak about it ,the kids can read it, you just can't put the state endorsement behind it,which using it as a textbook does.

      J: It wasn't an endorsement, and it's not about religious beliefs. Teleological causality is a way to explain effects. It can be evil design, even.

      V: It promotes a particular religious belief.

      J: No. A belief that can not be "exercised" is not addressed by the 1st amendment.

      V: You are just mad because it is your belief.

      J: You're a pathetic mind-reader. No worries, though. Most people are.

      Delete
    11. Correction:

      J1: The 14th amendment essentially applied the jurisprudence of the comity clause to all persons born in the U.S. It did this by creating a national citizenship that did not exist theretofore.

      J2: Actually, it did it by establishing all persons born in a State in the Union as citizens OF that State. This meant the comity clause would apply to all persons born in each of the States. The national citizenship was probably created to render the Union non-voluntary, as opposed to the voluntary Union that existed theretofore.

      That secession was legal was established in the ratifying conventions. The federalist papers implied it by admitting that the sovereignty of the States (that had existed under the Articles of Confederation) was not affected.

      That secession was considered a natural right was explicitly claimed in the Federalist papers as well (remember, the writers of the Federalist papers [Madison, Hamilton, & Jay] were attendees of the Constitutional Convention and certain State Conventions) where they contended that States could SECEDE from the PERPETUAL UNION of the Articles of Confederation without consent of the other member states of that Union merely to increase their own happiness thereby. Indeed, they didn't even secede via a State Convention as the Southern states did.

      In short, V, it's you and yours that read into history and legislation what YOU want when you can't get it by legal (i.e., apart from perjured usurpation) means. But, hey, if there's no benevolent God, why not? Heck, advocate murder of more than just Southerners while you're at it. Throw in theists of all stripes.

      Delete
  6. Cornelius,

    Did it occur to you that this fish (or its ancestor) may have lost hemoglobin? That is a plausible evolutionary scenario, isn't it? A Japanese education specialist is quoted in the article: "Why is it the fish lost haemoglobin? More studies are needed on the question."

    In fact, there is evidence that this has happened. Whereas C. rastrospinosus has totally transparent blood, other members of the Channichthyidae family exhibit the spectrum from yellow to almost-transparent blood. They have genomic remnants of α-globin genes. The authors of this 1998 paper "demonstrate that loss of expression of the major adult α-globin, α1, in two species of icefish (Chaenocephalus aceratus and Chionodraco rastrospinosus) results from truncation of the 5′ end of the notothenioid α1-globin gene" and "propose that abrogation of hemoglobin synthesis in icefishes most likely resulted from a single mutational event in the ancestral channichthyid that deleted the entire β-globin gene and the 5′ end of the linked α1-globin gene."

    That seems to be in line with evolutionary theory, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oleg, Just silly stuff. He linked to the article so you are basically trying to inform him of whats in what he already read.

      "So, strong confirmation of evolution whatever is found, right Oleg?"

      yep and another example of just so stories. Poor fish lost haemoglobin, but evolved features needed to compensate (or just happened to have them to compensate before hand) all of which was selected for.



      Delete
    2. Linked to which article? Zhao et al.? I don't think so.

      And before you dismiss that article as a just-so story, read it first, Mr. Wise Guy.

      Delete
    3. oleg:

      Did it occur to you that this fish (or its ancestor) may have lost hemoglobin? That is a plausible evolutionary scenario, isn't it? ... That seems to be in line with evolutionary theory, doesn't it?.

      Oh yes, that definitely is the explanation. For this and the many other lineage-specific examples, evolutionists have basically two explanations: rapid, independent, evolution of the feature in different lineages, or multiple losses in different lineages. And both explanations are contemplated and used. In this case loss is the obvious choice.

      And yes, I could see how it might be plausible, but it seems to me that this isn't obviously plausible. Perhaps the scenario could go something like this: fish migrate to colder waters, in addition to the colder temperature they evolve several modifications that reduce the need for hemoglobin transport of oxygen (larger heart, less viscous blood), then you have a mutation that disables hemoglobin and it is only mildly harmful or perhaps neutral.

      On the fact of it that doesn't seem terribly implausible. But why did it evolve the larger heart, less viscous blood, etc?

      I've certainly seen much more heroic, unrealistic evolutionary speculations. So perhaps this is potentially plausible. But in any case, it demonstrates the flexibility of evolution and how falsified predictions can be sustained, thus rendering the prediction less powerful.

      Delete
    4. CH: "On the fact of it that doesn't seem terribly implausible. But why did it evolve the larger heart, less viscous blood, etc?"

      Cornelius,

      You are asking the wrong question. It should be how, not why.

      Delete
    5. On a larger point, you have not really responded to my questions. Clearly this fish has relatives whose blood is not transparent and whose genomes contain remnants of hemoglobin genes. It is furthermore clear which mutations could accomplish the task. Does this not indicate that their ancestors might well have functioning hemoglobin?

      Delete
    6. Oleg can you even read?

      Here is the link in the post above

      http://www.france24.com/en/20130405-japan-aquarium-shows-mysterious-clear-blood-fish

      Very last line raises the question of how the fish LOST haemoglobin so my point stands.

      Delete
    7. Elijah, I do not see your point.

      There is no question whether CH linked to the popular article you mention. He obviously did.

      I asked why he had not bothered to look through scientific literature, which contains, among other things, the article by Zhao et al. That paper plainly contradicts CH's point of "falsification." The fish has relatives with yellow blood and with remnants of hemoglobin genes.

      Do you understand this?

      Delete
    8. "Elijah, I do not see your point."

      Then you are as blind as a bat mentally. Its perfectly clear. I am referring to this silliness of yours here when you Ask Cornelius

      "Did it occur to you that this fish (or its ancestor) may have lost hemoglobin?

      WHEN HE LINKED TO AN ARTICLE THAT RAISES SAID QUESTION.

      That is what I am pointing out.

      Delete
    9. Thanks for your efforts, Elijah, but I think I can do without your help.

      No offense meant.

      Delete
    10. No offense taken. I hardly expect you to admit to the utter nonsense of your question or that you didn't read the article he linked to in order to see the point would have already been raised.

      Delete
    11. Of course I read it. I was not asking about that article, my friend. Go back and reread my comments.

      Delete
    12. Why are atheist leaners so patently dishonest? particularly online?

      It doesn't matter what you claim now or what article you choose to cover it with. The point is that asking someone if they have considered something they have already referred to is a game of rhetoric.

      Of course if it was referred in a link then he was aware of it and would therefore have considered it. Its a small and obvious point to be lying so persistently about like you don't understand the point.

      Its just this Tom Foolery tactic taught by example of the popular New Atheist authors to pretend that anyone who disagrees isn't smart enough or had not "considered" the issue.

      Delete
    13. Elijah2012

      Of course if it was referred in a link then he was aware of it and would therefore have considered it.


      So you're saying that CH was either too lazy to check the primary literature which would have told him immediately his claimed "prediction failure" was wrong, or he did check the literature but deliberately lied about what is there anyway.

      Which do you think it is?

      Delete
    14. oleg:

      Clearly this fish has relatives whose blood is not transparent and whose genomes contain remnants of hemoglobin genes. It is furthermore clear which mutations could accomplish the task. Does this not indicate that their ancestors might well have functioning hemoglobin?

      Sure, I agree. And if globin remnants are found in the Ocellated Ice Fish that play nicely with the other Channichthyidae, then we chalk this one up for evolution. Though there are still the questions I mentioned above. Either you lose the hemoglobin without the needed adaptations (larger heart, thinner blood ...) or you have the adaptations for no apparent reason, and then can lose the hemoglobin.

      Delete
    15. Cornelius said:

      "Sure, I agree. And if globin remnants are found in the Ocellated Ice Fish that play nicely with the other Channichthyidae, then we chalk this one up for evolution. Though there are still the questions I mentioned above."

      Then why don't you wait until more research is done before saying this:

      "Another Falsification"

      And this:

      "Perhaps evolutionists need to start asking themselves why they believe the world spontaneously arose, in spite of the scientific evidence."

      And how does a fish's transparent blood even begin to prove that "the world" was designed-created by the fictional bible characters yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost?

      Can you produce ANY "scientific evidence" that verifies the existence of yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost and that they are the things that designed-created everything? If not, then why do you believe in them and promote them in spite of the fact that there's no "scientific evidence" that verifies their existence and all of the stuff that is attributed to them in the bible?

      And why do you believe in them and the rest of the fairy tales in the bible in spite of the fact that "scientific evidence" has clearly and abundantly shown that there were no such people as adam and eve, that no one can live inside a fish, that no world wide flood occurred, that noah's ark was impossible, that no one can come to life after being crucified and dead for three days and then walk around like nothing happened and then float away into the sky, that no one can be turned into a pillar of salt, that no one can walk on water, that prayer doesn't work, that swarms of locusts are natural events, that goats or sheep do not have striped or spotted offspring because they mate while looking at striped sticks, that the exodus from Egypt never occurred, that bushes and snakes don't talk, that the Earth and universe are WAY, WAY older than the bible says, that people cannot live for 900+ years, etc., etc., etc.?

      Delete
    16. CH: "Sure, I agree. And if globin remnants are found in the Ocellated Ice Fish that play nicely with the other Channichthyidae, then we chalk this one up for evolution."

      Well, if you agree with that then perhaps you should be self-consistent and retract statements about falsification of evolution. Or are you just being sarcastic? Can't tell.

      "Though there are still the questions I mentioned above. Either you lose the hemoglobin without the needed adaptations (larger heart, thinner blood ...) or you have the adaptations for no apparent reason, and then can lose the hemoglobin."

      These are good questions for follow-up research. But again, they are not a basis to claim falsification.

      Delete
    17. ".Well, if you agree with that then perhaps you should be self-consistent and retract statements about falsification of evolution. "

      again I must ask - Can you even read? Where did Cornelius ever say anything about the "falsification of evolution"? You are either sloppy in your reading or lying again. The only thing I see in reference to falsification was a falsification of this


      "Comparing the hemoglobin amino acid sequence of different species with the human sequence in figure 17.7, you can see that species more closely related to humans have fewer differences in the amino acid structure of their hemoglobin. … Again, the prediction of evolutionary theory is strongly confirmed"

      Cornelius even stated that the falsification of THAT poses a problem for evolution NOT falsifies it.

      If a close relative can have no hemoglobin then the above quote is wrong. THat has been falsified. Doesn't matter if it was lost. Biology does not require that closely related organisms have such a grade of similarity. There CAN be relative big changes as this demonstrates. You merely choose to gloss over the fact that that was wrong. Now that you have been proven wrong (again) this time in your inventing any claim of "falsification of evolution" will you be "self-consistent and retract statements"? Or pretend to not get the point again?

      This is all part and parcel of a larger issue that even reaches the subject of convergent evolution where relatedness has no function at all in the similarities.

      In this case loss may be a suitable explanation but it should give us pause as to similar interpretations of evidence. (P.S. As a theist i have no issue with loss in this scenario as it doesn't fit my take on creation anyway.)

      If you were not so invested you might see what more and more people are seeing evidence of - biological adaptation not being driven by selection but by expression of genes in a purposeful way. This fits ID perfectly without coming up with just so stories that ice fish just happened to have evolved the very traits necessary to late overcome the loss of hemoglobin.

      Delete
    18. Elijah,

      Next time don't waste your effort for I have exhausted my quota of reading your trivialities for this week.

      Delete
    19. As i have proven your quota ended long ago. Its precisely the fact that you do not read that has been shown. Still a weak response even for you although I do like your misplaced self confidence.

      I have never posted for you to read.

      Delete
    20. oleg:

      Well, if you agree with that then perhaps you should be self-consistent and retract statements about falsification of evolution. Or are you just being sarcastic? Can't tell.

      Well when we refer to falsifications we're talking about falsifications to predictions of evolution, not of evolution itself. In fact the OP stated merely that the "falsification of said prediction must pose problems for the theory." Nonetheless, your comments here are well taken. There is, no doubt, more to learn about this surprise and puzzling find of lineage-specific biology. That said, this particular prediction of evolution, as the OP points out, has already been falsified to death. And furthermore, as we have discussed, even if some nice globin gene remnants are found, there remains substantial explaining to do.

      What would be helpful (for education and everything else), would be if evolutionists exhibited a similar level of scrutiny of their own theory and willingness to admit prediction failure, as they exhibit when defending the theory. That doesn't happen simply because evolution is held to be a fact, so falsified predictions are water under the bridge. Theoretical failures that are no longer relevant because the next epicycle has covered it over.

      Delete
    21. No one has conceived of a test that could potentially falsify naturalistic UCA. Even if the statistical degree of nestedness, etc in the hierarchy was not impressive, that would not at all falsify naturalistic UCA.

      These so-called predictions are just psychological expectations. No one wants to tell the public how many really bizarre counter-expected observations there are, because when they're thought through in terms of implications, it's obvious just why naturalistic UCA is non-falsifiable. It posits the utterly a-plausible and counts as evidence the fact that it CAN'T be falsified. Evidence in any other context does NOT mean that.

      Delete
    22. Cornelius said:

      "Well when we refer to falsifications we're talking about falsifications to predictions of evolution, not of evolution itself."

      Wow, that's some blatant false witnessing. Your whole ID-creationist agenda is based on falsifying evolution and the theory of evolution.

      Delete
  7. So, strong confirmation of evolution whatever is found, right Oleg?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tedford the Slow

      So, strong confirmation of evolution whatever is found, right Oleg?


      That's right Mr. Slow. Not strong confirmation from anything that could have been found, strong confirmation from what actually was found.

      That's how science works.

      As the studies show, these fish still have the hemoglobin gene in their DNA. It's just no longer expressed. They still fit into the nested hierarchical pattern of evolution just fine.

      Delete
  8. Dear Cornelius,
    I have found your blog, which I really like it. Enjoyed to read your posts and reports.
    I was wondering if you would be interested in sharing your posts and ideas on Glipho? It's a quite new social publishing platform for bloggers like, where you can connect to every social network accounts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Hunter, don't do it. Monika is up to no good, don't connect your social network.

      Delete
    2. Being the only lady here ( I think), you should tell something more welcoming.

      :)

      Speaking of ladies I was thinking today. In the light of the NBA player announcement, instead of giving people like that hard time we should encourage the "switch". More of them "switch", more ladies for the rest of us.

      Delete
  9. Evolutionists are just getting over their "junk-DNA" hangover, some having drank the ENCODE coffee. Having incorrectly relegated 90% of DNA of living animals to a junk bin because of the previous knee-jerk reaction based on Darwinism, we are supposed to be impressed that they know that in the distant past icefish lost some genes or fragments of genes.

    It's a clever game of deception to boldly declare that A is strong evidence, but when not-A is found, then the animal had A, but lost it. I would say that you can't make this stuff up... but apparently evolutionists do all time.

    They just as well can say that all animals evolved hemoglobin independently, but the icefish didn't. It makes no difference to their theory of everything that predicts nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tedford the Slow

      It's a clever game of deception to boldly declare that A is strong evidence, but when not-A is found, then the animal had A, but lost it. I would say that you can't make this stuff up... but apparently evolutionists do all time.


      But it's not made up Tedford. It's empirically observed evidence as detailed in the Sindell and Zhao papers. You ready to give us your alternate explanation?

      They just as well can say that all animals evolved hemoglobin independently, but the icefish didn't. It makes no difference to their theory of everything that predicts nothing.

      But that's not what the evidence shows. Why are you so afraid of dealing with empirically determined reality?


      Delete
  10. It seems to me that we can make a prediction based on ID/Evolution in this case. Since according to evolutionists these fish diverged from their red-blooded relatives 5-15 million years ago, a hemoglobin pseudogene should still be there, and the number of mutations its accumulated could be roughly predicted. Would any IDers care to make a prediction about this or anything else?
    RW

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cornelius, have you ever thought of 'discussing' scientific evidence and explanations instead of just attacking evolution, the ToE, and evolutionists, and looking for what you believe are gaps that you think you can fit your so-called god into?

    This site could actually be an interesting place to discuss scientific findings but all it has ever been is a pulpit for your science and evolution attacking sermons and the sermons of other god pushers. Did you go to college and get a PhD just to gripe about evolution and science? Why don't you actually contribute to science and get your fellow god pushers to do the same thing? Yeah, there are a lot of questions that remain to be answered but bitching about science and evolution won't answer them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate what Cornelius is doing and hope he continues.

      Delete
    2. TWT, the name of the site is Darwin's God, so Cornelius is just sticking with his topic. Why discuss scientific findings with a group of people that are agenda driven by a a muddled view of what they think God should have done. Admit your religious agenda and come clean and maybe he'll move on as you suggest. Nothing that can be found or suggested scientifically will move you. What may move you to the truth is not based on science. For you guys, it was never science anyway. I pray that you find God's love.

      Delete
    3. This has never been a science discussion board. It's a Christian Apologetics board where CH presents twisted and/or completely false statements about the evolutionary sciences to help push the Discovery Institute's "wedge" agenda.

      To date the "wedge" strategy has been a dismal failure but as long as the 'Tooters keeps cutting the checks the lies about science will continue. There are still a few scientifically illiterate mouth-breathers like Tedford and Elijah2012 who swallow this nonsense uncritically.

      Delete
    4. Dismal failure?

      LOL that fits in with all your other denials of truth. Not only has Atheism not cracked double figures recent polling indicates any growth it had has been leveled off.

      whoops now thats failure for you.

      Delete
    5. Atheism only succeeds (temporarily) when it can jail and kill and bully those who disagree with them (Stalin, Mao, etc). All such temporary triumphs of atheism into society at large were short lived when they ran out of people that they could rob and people got sick enough of the bad economy and empty life.

      Delete
    6. And yet, Neal, that's no consolation to those who were and will be tortured and killed by them. So hold on to your hat.

      Delete
    7. Neal Tedford May 1, 2013 at 11:25 AM

      Atheism only succeeds (temporarily) when it can jail and kill and bully those who disagree with them (Stalin, Mao, etc).


      If you read the Old Testament you will find those practices pre-date twentieth-century tyrants by a good couple of thousand years.

      Delete
    8. I agree, nothing worse than someone who doesn't fear the fires of hell, they just go amuck. After all the only thing an atheist fears is when" they ran out of people that they could rob and people got sick enough of the bad economy and empty life."

      We could make it a Crusade.

      First we need to eliminate all the atheist politicians. Ok,done.

      Next protest against the heavy boot of atheist power in our tax exempt churches. Tryanny!!!

      Finally a constitutional revision, formalize our status as a Judeo-Christian Nation. And add an admendment establishing the death penalty for sacrilege, for example using the phrase " Happy Holidays"

      Now the atheists think we have to abide by some " objective morality" , big surprise dummies, we let the Catholics do the dirty work and one simple confession, a couple of Hail Marys violà:) factum fac

      Now I am busy this weekend( a weekend in the Hill Country,eating BBQ , drinking whiskey, " stargazing") but next weekend is free if you want to start then.


      Delete
    9. Ian,

      You should read the Bible. You would see that jails were not part of their society in ancient Israel.

      Robbery was forbidden and the thief had to pay back in full, plus extra. The prophets, such as Isaiah and others, strongly rebuked their leaders who took bribes, abused people, and forgot the poor.

      There was obviously a high degree of freedom for we see many examples of people doing their own thing. The book of judges ends with, "every man did what was right in his own eyes".

      You have many misconceptions about Old Testament life and most atheists like to cherry pick and take things out of context. It seems when God allows evil, then He can't exist because God wouldn't do that. Yet, when God judges evil, then he is labeled a tyrant or worse. Your post was shallow and full of inconsistencies.

      Delete
    10. Power tends to corrupts; absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Matters not whether the power be religious or not.

      Delete
    11. Neal Tedford May 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

      Ian,

      You should read the Bible.


      I have, Neal

      You would see that jails were not part of their society in ancient Israel.

      You mean they preferred amputations and executions?

      Robbery was forbidden and the thief had to pay back in full, plus extra.

      Robbery is forbidden here and now, in case you hadn't noticed.

      The prophets, such as Isaiah and others, strongly rebuked their leaders who took bribes, abused people, and forgot the poor.

      I expect rebukes worked then about as well as they do now.

      There was obviously a high degree of freedom for we see many examples of people doing their own thing. The book of judges ends with, "every man did what was right in his own eyes".

      We also see many peoples being decimated or even annihilated for doing their own thing or even just being in their own place if it wasn't right in God's eyes.

      You have many misconceptions about Old Testament life and most atheists like to cherry pick and take things out of context.

      Not being historians of Iron Age Palestine I'm sure we do but this isn't about history, it's about the stories in the Bible.

      It seems when God allows evil, then He can't exist because God wouldn't do that.

      It's not so much that God allows evil but whether God as understood by Christianity could allow evil. Worse then that, if God created everything that is then He must have created evil as well.

      Yet, when God judges evil, then he is labeled a tyrant or worse.

      If there are stories in the Old Testament which describe God behaving like a tyrant - and there are such - then it's appropriate to call it what it is.

      Delete
  12. Vel, atheists are attempting to destroy our constitiution. That's reality - not the silly stuff you write about amending the constitution or whatever. Perhaps you started drinking already.

    Here is a disgusting example of what atheist bully boys are attempting to do...

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith

    If atheists don't like religious freedom in America they should go to the USSR - Oh, that's right, it was a failed state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vel, atheists are attempting to destroy our constitiution. That's reality -

      No Neal they are not, most atheistsjust don't want someone to shove their religious beliefs down their throat supported by the power of the government. Your practice of religion can't deny someone else's rights, sorry . I am not an atheist and I feel the same way.

      not the silly stuff you write about amending the constitution or whatever. Perhaps you started drinking already.

      Tell me some Christians would not like a theocracy. The second is has become a part of Christmas as mistletoe, the WarOnChristmas.

      I was all out,luckily that has been remedied. It is right up your alley Neal, Noah's Mill. Drink too much and you will see two of every kind.

      If atheists don't like religious freedom in America they should go to the USSR

      They wished you liked it more. Special treatment is not freedom of religion,

      Delete
    2. It looks more like Christians who want to undermine the Constitution.

      It is conservative Christians who want to demolish the wall of separation between church and state. The only religious freedom they want is for themselves. When they demand greater access for religion to the "public square" or politics, the religion they are thinking about isn't Islam or Hinduism or Sikhism or Wicca, it isn't even Roman Catholicism, it is conservative Protestantism. What they would really like, although only a few of the more extreme dare say it out loud, is nothing less than a Protestant theocracy. If that ever happens then woe betide those of other faiths - or no faith at all.

      Delete
    3. Godbotherers like Tedford don't understand that not only does the Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, it also guarantees freedom from religion.

      Delete