Thursday, July 28, 2011

Andrew the Atheist's thought on the Angry Atheists

I think background helps a lot.  It helps give perspective on why the opposing side holds the opposing viewpoint.  It gives clarity into what needs to be said, and what does not.  See, now that I know you've attended christian schools, I know we share that in common, and I don't have to describe the level of indoctrination that goes on there.

I just want to clarify why the atheist is more likely to both comment here, and be angry.  First, why are atheists more likely to be here?

Most atheists I know, and certainly myself, would really like to see an argument from a christian, or any believer, that we have not already heard and considered.  One of the objections to going over all the apologetics at my atheist group meetings was that it's so easy to just google them.  Spend some time at wikipedia and you'll be an expert.  They are all the same; we've heard them before; they never change; and even after they are refutted to peices, they come back.  And NOBODY is conviced by them, not even believers. 

Because the arguments are used so often, and the rebuttals are so easy, and we all tend to hang around people that agree with us, the atheist is hungry to test these rebuttals in a real debate.  We go looking for people that seem intellegent enough to debate, and wonder how in the world they have never considered the opposing side's argument.  And everyone loves a train wreck.

Christians, by contrast, have little to gain from these debates.  Especially if they are going against an atheist who can clearly outgun them.  Just look at what happend on Empire Avenue.  Phillippe's blocked me.  Frank can do nothing but insult me as he rambles blibber blubber. 

If you think that you have the truth, and try to share it with an atheist, and get torn to bits because the atheist knows your argument better than you do, you stop wanting to share it with atheists.  Better to try other brands of christians instead.  At least they partially agree, and they only disagree on things that cannot be proved through science, and therefore there was no good reason to believe them anyway.

Atheists are angry because we see real HARM that comes from religion, in particular christianity, though other religions are dangerous as well.  When Harold Camping makes people beleive that the world is going to end, that's real harm.  People lost their life savings; one lady tried to kill herself and her children.  That's BAD, and it happened because a religious nut made a nutty claim that held some credit because of a religious theme.  That's just one example.

So I'm not surprised that the atheists are flocking here.  And I'm not surprised there are angry comments.  And I, too, am disappointed there are not more christians here.  But I am not surprised.

51 comments:

  1. Personally, I believe that most people make core decisions more out of emotion than rational thought (atheists and Christians). This is partly why Tim's discussion about other ways of knowing is important. Christians admit there is a legitimate way to know things relationally. Most atheists do not.

    Beyond that, it is great that China has provided us with such a good and just model of what an intelligent atheist society could be. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Personally, I believe..." The rest of that statement is useless to me in a factual sense.

    Wow! Your statement about China sounds a little ignorant and ethnocentric to me.

    We are talking about Tim's discussion of other ways of knowing but not yet talking about these "other ways". I would like to see some solid facts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, Andrew, you are so ignorant. You can't blame Christianity because of one man's opinion on something. Clearly the Bible teaches differently.
    Atheists have a big problem admitting their view is a religion, but here they are evangelizing and having meetings. (Sounds like a religion to me) Christians do not bother in these discussions, because the truth is that we know no matter what evidence is shown, you will never address the issues. I have heard you before and all you do is repeat yourself without addressing points. Maybe you should list exactly why you are an Atheist and exactly how you KNOW, not think, but how you KNOW that there isn't a God.

    You say you don't like people saying that it requires more faith to be an Atheist, buy you believe by faith that all matter in the world was in a super small dot outside of space mind you, then it decided to blow up and form itself by random chances into the amazing universe we have today, all laws, all of nature, all by chance, an you claim somehow to have proof for all this. Yeah Right!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree the Bible does teach differently. I learned the correct way to beat my slave

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQFI66E12sU

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh my ignorant brethren, first of old, this is Old Testament, people, humans not God had slaves, this is how bad the world was back then, God decided to create some laws to protect them. Things in the OT where the way they were to allow prophecy to occur, In the New covenant, the Old testament, God tells us to treat others as we want wished to be treated. You need to read the whole book if you want to make an argument. God allows you to be an Atheist, is that his fault also? God did not institute slavery, he simply allowed it, same way he allows other things to occur, to grant us free will, to bad people as well as good. What does Evolution teach, well that the strong will survive, this is the real religion of death, all we have now has been because of the survival of the fittest. You take your pick.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Also..

    The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
    The slave was a member of the master's household (Lev. 22:11).
    The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
    The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
    The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
    The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
    When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).

    ReplyDelete
  7. "unknownseedsower", I may say personally, but there is lots of evidence that people of every belief system (including atheists) use their gut more than their mind no matter how rational they believe themselves to be. In fact the "rational" ones more so because they fail to discern how their emotions affect them.

    I'm not impressed with your ad hominem and trust you will address the discussion before us more directly moving forward.

    Furthermore, I have great respect for the people of China (and my comment was tongue in cheek). What I do not respect is the atheistic regime that tortures and imprisons people who disagree with them. Atheists like to bring up what Christian do with power. I am just reminding you that the atheists have yet to demonstrate a better way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I’ve always wondered why certain individuals like to call Atheism a religion. That has always seemed to me like saying one’s hair color is bald. Yes, it goes in the same category to answer just what religion you are, but it is saying “Not Applicable”. Atheism is a lack of belief that any religious view is valid to me and no presented religion has been able to provide extraordinary proof for the extraordinary claims they make, it is not a religion or a cult or a belief system of sorts but the absence of such things.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Resistant to commenting for lack of good words to wield however, in response to religious harm: I do believe that people can truly do harm to others all in the name of doing "God's work" however, what I feel is missed is this; Not every Christian is like that. Unfortunately though, because I am a Christian, I find myself automatically labeled by those who say they're Atheists as harmful or somehow bad (or ignorant, misguided, closed minded, wrong) because I also state that I believe in God.

    What I believe and what those harmful, hurtful and often hateful folks out there believe is very very different.

    In response to your comment about gut vs. mind: Totally agree. In my own life, I had no upbringing in any kind of church. My family, a buffet of religious titles, didn't (at the core) have any sort of belief system. However, I still grew up believing that God was there. I don't know why or how but I did and still do. Is it rational? Hmm, for me I guess it is. But then is it better to just ask or assume that being rational is also relative to the person?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh boy!! Golly do I have much that demands a response!! Let's start with "Anonymous", shall we?

    Anonymous claims to have debated me before. Hmm.. Who could this be? My mind spins with possibilities. Oh, who cares? It's much more usefull to just pick him/her apart.

    "You can't blame Christianity because of one man's opinion on something. Clearly the Bible teaches differently."

    I DO blame christianity on one man's opinion, but that one man is Paul, who wrote half of the new testament. That's a completely different topic. But I take it to mean that I cannot blame christianity for Harold Camping's opinion. And why not? Clearly, Camping used the bible to discover that May 21, 2011 was the rapture. Clearly, you use the same book and disagree. Clearly, the bible must not be all that clear.

    "Atheists have a big problem admitting their view is a religion, but here they are evangelizing and having meetings. (Sounds like a religion to me)"

    Then the Democratic and Republican parties are also religions. What a stupid argument!!

    "you will never address the issues. I have heard you before and all you do is repeat yourself without addressing points."

    Does this quote-refute pattern seem familiar to you? It's because I always address the points.

    "Maybe you should list exactly why you are an Atheist and exactly how you KNOW, not think, but how you KNOW that there isn't a God."

    I posted links to my apostasy story. That is WHY I am an atheist. Read them. I've a blog about how I KNOW there is no god. In short, it is the same way I KNOW there are no unicorns.

    "[Y]ou believe by faith that all matter in the world was in a super small dot outside of space mind you, then it decided to blow up and form itself by random chances into the amazing universe we have today, all laws, all of nature, all by chance..."

    Not one atheist I know thinks that. You are making a bad strawman argument, or you lack even a fundamental understanding of the big bang theory, or both.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mel M: First, I want to thank you for posting. Second, I think you phrased your argument well. You even summarized it for me:

    "What I believe and what those harmful, hurtful and often hateful folks out there believe is very very different."

    This is what is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It says that Fred Phelps and Harold Camping are NOT "true" christians. There are a couple of problems with this. First, they SAY they are christians. Why should we doubt them? To the outsider, or the atheist, looking in, both you and Phelps claim christianity. Why should I take your word and not Phelps' word?

    Next, if we went on listing people and asked if they were or were not "true" christians, what we would find is that people who agree with you ARE true christians and people who do NOT agree with you are not true christians. That is the case for EVERY christian. In other words, Camping would call YOU the heretic. How am I to discount HIS claim?

    All three of you, Camping, Phelps, and yourself, hold VERY different ideas about what it means to be christian. All three of you will claim you can use the bible to support your position. Indeed, I've no doubt all three of you could. What if I could use the bible to support a fourth position?

    Don't get me wrong; I like yours better than Phelps', but what I like and what I don't like is not an indicator of what is true.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Athanasius,
    Sorry you were not impressed with the butthurt.

    "I may say personally, but there is lots of evidence that people of every belief system (including atheists) use their gut more than their mind no matter how rational they believe themselves to be."

    If there is "evidence" share it please. Share the "evidence". With out "evidence". Your statements are bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous...

    (one of you that said "Oh my ignorant brethren, first of old, this is Old Testament, people, humans not God had slaves, this is how bad the world was back then")

    There are slaves still in existence in 2011. The world was bad back then? How about now? The whole anti-homosexual stuff was in the old testament wasn't it? Correct me if I am wrong please.

    Why do christians care so much about banning same sex marriages?

    christians don't have to get same sex marriages if they don't like them.

    Also, why would a christian god create hermaphrodites?

    If two hermaphrodites get married is this considered a same sex marriage?

    (maybe i'm getting off topic with the same sex marriage stuff)

    I just find nonbelievers and homosexuals teaming up on because the religious nutjobs like to force their beliefs on those around them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "unknownseedsower", read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_Decision_Making

    With that, I am done with you. You are abusive and you do your position no favors.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So, Atheism requires no Faith, so let me ask, have you guys ever seen Macro-Evolution, have you watched it with your own eyes? Atheists want God to come speak each and one of them personally and say, "I AM GOD, I EXIST", but yet, when it comes to Evolution, they believe by faith everything they read that is supposedly a proof? Why don't you believe religious people who have had the same proofs? It isn't like you yourself have seen macro-evolution, or you know how the first life came into being. These things can't be repeated in a lab, therefore should fall outside the realm of science. Micro-evolution or simply adaptation exists, so what? it is a huge leap to assume from that, that fish evolved into mammals.
    Andrew the reason I know you believe by faith is because you listened to Dawkins speak on the Laryngeal nerve of a Giraffe and took as proof. Seriously, thats all it took, seems like you follow the leader of the clan no matter what he says. Do some serious research on it, you will find it innervates other areas close to the heart and even thought to be used during embryonic stages which we haven't even come close to understanding. This isn't the only thing that Evolutionist have tried to pass as proof, lets see, (nebraska man, piltdown man come to mind). Also just because Dawkins thinks is not a good design, doesn't make it any less designed. While I know that God has a perfect design, I've seen plenty of computer code thats far from perfect, but designed nevertheless. You speak from ignorance, just because we may not have an idea of the full purpose of the nerve.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh and please, explain in your best words what the Big Bang theory is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Athanasious, I think you are really giving up because you have no answers. Ultimately evolution is science NOT philosophy. You have no proof of a god. You have no proof of a designer. I really don't give a damn what you "believe". Your beliefs are irrelevant to what is "fact" and what is "truth".

    Be done with me then.

    I'll leave you with this...
    -------------------------------------------
    Why do people laugh at creationists
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
    -------------------------------------------

    Thanks for never addressing any questions I asked.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous,
    The Evidence is in the fossil record. You can go to a science museum and see this evidence. I have never went to a science museum and encountered god, babyjesus, zeus, the flying spaghetti monster, thor, old testament god (thankfully wouldn't want to get murdered), new testament god, bigfoot, hercules, lucifer, xenu, thetans, zeus or even captain planet.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, looky!! Anonymous is back! yeah.

    Does it make you feel good, Anon, to post such idiocy behind a faceless, nameless identity? Do you go to bed with a big grin on your face thinking you've "one-uped" the atheist?

    I'm breaking from my ususal responses to your post. First, this thread is SUPPPOSED to be about why atheists are angry and why atheists participate is these debates more than believers.

    Second, and this is important so I'll type slowly, if you want science answers, ASK A SCIENTIST!! See, that's what I do when I have a question. I do a little research. And no, I don't just watch one Dawkins vid. Though I did see that one and found it facinating.

    If you want to know about evolution, the big bang, relativity, string theory, m theory, physics, cosmology, or algebra, we have these things called colleges and universities. Try them.

    Why do believers come to the atheist for their science education? Why am I constantly bombarded with completely uneducated blibber blubber? Why does it fall to me to teach people how the world works?

    This is why I asked Tim what he knows about apologetics. I really don't want to have to explain why the first-cause arguement fails so utterly. I realy don't want to have to explain why Pascal's Wager isn't even an argument. I want to move past that, or just pay it lip service so we can get to better topics.

    But because I'm in a giving mood, Anon, how's about you check out:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    Here, you'll get 29 Evidences for MacroEvolution.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Typical Andrew, you see, all you do is give out links, which means you don't even understand it completely to explain it yourself. All of the evidences for Macro evolution listed there are crap. Are you telling me you still believe humans have vestigial tails, and that we have gills in the embryo. See thats the problem, you read and believe blindly, you have never seen an embryo, yet you believe it because someone else listed it.

    I didn't ask you to teach me, you eluded to know what the Bing Bang was since I didn't understand it. I'm asking you to explain, not give me a link.

    It doesn't make me feel good at all actually, you're lost and for that I'm very sorry. You can call all the names you want, if you think it helps you push your point across.

    I haven't signed up yet because I'm lazy, not because of fear, and I would not use my real name anywhere on the internet, not just this discussion.

    The last comment you made, you provided nothing, you evade the questions and mentioned a bunch of different studies in science to seem intelligent, I have studied physics, have read string theory which is the same as m theory BTW.

    You didn't just find the video of Dawkins fascinating, you took it as fact, because I've heard talking about it like the is the Holy Grail. Why have you no comments as to the explanation I provided for the nerve. Oh right, because it doesn't help your point. So you escape and provide a a bunch of silly statement.

    Believers come to atheists for education, where did you get that from? Did I come to you for education. I don't think so, all you do is quote someone else who does the actual thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I love your about page...

    About Me
    I'm an atheist. After years of trying to find a religion that suited me.....

    You found Evolution.... Oh it all makes sense..

    ReplyDelete
  22. why was a post from me deleted?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry. The filter accidentally put it in Spam. It has been fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Andrew,
    This anonymous sounds like on of those good loving christian types. I like how he has previously said talking do you was a waste of time yet wastes his time stalking you on the internet. This guy is a little creepy.


    "I didn't ask you to teach me, you eluded to know what the Bing Bang was since I didn't understand it. I'm asking you to explain, not give me a link."

    So he wants you to teach him pretty much Andrew. This guy is so confused. he doesn't even know what he wants. I love the pointless sarcastic attack on your "about me".

    I will say... I am interested in knowing what this "Bing" bang is all about. Is that like the "Big" Bang?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Any argument you have against me andrew fails becuz the almitey Jesus face in teh sky says to me "Andrew is wrong".

    andruw cant explain tome what the bingidty bang was. Explain Gravity andrew!!!!
    Magnets! How do they work? Art thou the powers of his noodly appendage? Your science is inferior to my beliefs in the almighjy god. For i hope the almightidgy Jesus god has mercy for yar soul!.,

    Dont send me links Andruw! tell me the meaning of life? Dont use none of that science mambojambo!

    ReplyDelete
  26. A whole video of stuff that cannot be explained by SCIENCE!

    Miracles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs&ob=av3e

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is exactly why I try not to waste my time with Atheists, unknownseedsower obviously cant read very well. I Know what the Big Bang is. Andrew said that I didn't understand it. I want to see what his understanding of it was, not that I didn't know. Does that make sense to you unknownseedsower. I'm far from a stalker, I found this blog and that's what shows up, I also read up on Tim, am I stalking him also. See you guys result to personal attacks when you have nothing else to say.

    I listen to carm.org, and have therefore listened to Andrew call in time after time completely ignoring answers, when he doesn't like what he hears, he jumps to the next question without acknowledging the answer given.

    That's what I meant as him being a waste of time, and it is because he will never stop believing in Evolution, just as I will never stop believing in Creation. There's nothing one can say against evolutions because answers are fabricated, when you don't know how something evolved, you just create an imaginary story of how it could have happened and that is not science.

    Also, there are multiple people here posting under Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "That's what I meant as him being a waste of time, and it is because he will never stop believing in Evolution, just as I will never stop believing in Creation. There's nothing one can say against evolutions because answers are fabricated, when you don't know how something evolved, you just create an imaginary story of how it could have happened and that is not science."

    It is quite amazing that I can type without having the ability to read!

    Evolution is fact, supported by the fossil record, DNA evidence. Read a biology text...oh wait that conflicts with your holy texts.

    Evolution is "science" Not a "belief"
    Your beliefs are useless to me.

    You claim that evidence for evolution has been "fabricated". Are you delusional? Could you cite where this fabrication claim is coming from? I'm guessing not.

    I love how creationists think that if they "believe" something hard enough that it will become true.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous, which anonymous are you? I find it hard to distinguish which anonymous is the one I should listen to, each one seems different yet they keep posting similar messages. Are these posts even being made at the same time? Perhaps it would do you good to separate yourself from the other potential members of this 'anonymous' group in a way that cannot be replicated within a text box.

    Also, unless I am mistaken you are missing the point to Science and true understanding. You state you will never stop believing in Creation while Andrew will never stop believing in Evolution. If a proper and citable collection of facts could be gathered to discount evolution I suspect that Andrew and perhaps the scientific community would eventually change their opinions on Evolution. However such evidence has yet to surface and other sciences from fossil records to genetics has further strengthened the testable facts and the system of ideas that comprise the Theory of Evolution. This is how science is presented to work, changeable based on the facts that can be tested and repeated. As far as I know however, the ‘science’ of Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or what spin is put on it has not been properly proven to the scientific community and belongs in the same bin as Astrology.

    You don’t believe in Astrology too do you Anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  30. you insist on making fun, but thats okay. What makes you think I haven't

    "Read a biology text...oh wait that conflicts with your holy texts."


    I have read a lot about evolution, and have said that micro evolution is true, adaptability has been showing, but isn't the same as macro-evolution. If you believe all that science says, then you would have been disappointed when you found out after the piltdown man, nebraska man and many other fossils were passed down as fact when in reality they weren't.

    Just because we see a bone that looks like another doesn't mean one turned into another, this is an assumption. DNA will be similar in a lot of species, sure, Computer code looks very similar in different languages and by different coders, because the essentials are the same. You always hear about how close our DNA is to monkeys, well its very close to a bunch of other animals, and Ferns have way more chromosomes than we have, it means nothing.

    Evolution has gone through its stages also, Neo-Darwinism, puntucated equilibrium, etc.

    The human appendix was thought to be vestigial, now they know it isn't. There many cases when things get labeled to push this theory through without proper knowledge or investigation. There are way too many people making a living and getting grants from these fabrications.

    According to looking at fossils, if you saw a fossil of a caterpillar, then a cocoon, then a butterfly, you would say it evolved right? but only because we know today that it really is one animals life cycle we don't. If butterflies were extinct today, that would have been yet another fabrication.

    Evolution is supposed to occur by Natural selection and random mutation, amazingly, these random mutations seem to have ended up on mostly good mutation (contrary to what we observer today), how many fossils have we found with deformities from all these random mutations? Also if these mutations are so random, why do we have fossils from 40, 50 million years ago that look exactly as they are today, why haven't these gone through the same random mutations?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi RayzorDragon, this is the problem, people believe is is that for people to drop evolution. Too many people make a living based on it, scientists are constantly trying to find more and more things so they can get more grant money. There is even the old "if you are a creationist, then you are dumb, crazy, etc."

    Also you can't prove a negative, you are asking me to prove it isn't true, well I evolutionists to prove it is true. Show it in the lab, but it is very convenient that macro evolution cant be shown occurring.

    For me the evidence is very lacking, all we see are bones all over the place, that look very much like current animals. Heck, I can take all animals today and make as many transitions as I want, this is not proof. There are sooo many changed in anatomy from Fish to mammal to reptile, to bird, to amphibians, etc.

    Coelacanth was thought to be a missing link between fish and the tetrapods, all evolutionists believed it until they were found alive today and in exact form.

    ReplyDelete
  32. people believe is is that easy* for people to drop evolution

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Why do we have fossils from 40, 50 million years ago that look exactly as they are today, Why haven't these gone through the same random mutations?"

    Would you mind sharing what fossils you are talking about so we could elaborate on this?
    (look up "living fossils") may find what I think you are describing.

    "What same random mutations?" The same as what?

    "According to looking at fossils, if you saw a fossil of a caterpillar, then a cocoon, then a butterfly, you would say it evolved right?"

    We are not talking about Pokémon. That would be called metamorphosis. You should look again at fossil records. We know that human ancestors such as Homo habilis aren't part of a metamorphosis.

    Have a look a look at the fossils of our ancestors
    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/

    These hoaxes have been discovered with the use of science itself

    How the piltdown man was exposed
    http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_expose/pilt_man_hoax_exposed.html

    Because of the Scientific method, hoaxes such as the ones presented could be thrown out of realm of scientific knowledge. So far evolution has not been knocked down by any scientific evidence. Because some idiots tried to fake some fossils it does not discredit evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  34. you keep assuming I don't know what things are. Seriously, you need to come to the realization that some Creationists do know about Evolution. I know what "living fossils" are. The question is why have they not mutated? why did they not evolve by random mutations?

    Also where are all the deformities, where are all the bad mutations? If mutations where random, surely you would agree that we should see plenty of bad ones in the millions and millions of years of evolution..a

    ReplyDelete
  35. You only know humans are not part of metamorphosis because we have humans today. This is science, things that can be observed. All other is speculation at best.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "For me the evidence is very lacking, all we see are bones all over the place, that look very much like current animals. Heck, I can take all animals today and make as many transitions as I want, this is not proof. There are sooo many changed in anatomy from Fish to mammal to reptile, to bird, to amphibians, etc."

    Please then tell me what modern day animal parts make up a T-Rex.

    Trex skull
    http://www.aaskolnick.com/fieldmuseum/sue/trex.skull.jpg

    Trex skeleton
    http://static.bhigr.com/store/files/product_images/detailed/d_453.jpg


    Thank you for bringing up one of my favorite animals :)
    This thing is awesome! Hoping that we can agree on that at least.

    Coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYOf2wIoxgo

    More Coelacanth
    http://youtu.be/NzzxOlFJtzg

    The organisms present state was all it needed to survive in its environment. Living fossils are not proof of creationism nor are they evidence against evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'm going to extract an answer since didn't directly addressed the question.

    Please then tell me what modern day animal parts make up a T-Rex.

    What does this have to do with anything I said?
    T-Rex is a reptile. I don't see what you mean by this.

    Coelacanths are pretty awesome, we do agree :)


    This is the part I have the biggest issue with. The organism present state was all it needed to survive in its environment, therefore it stopped evolving right? But wait, isn't evolution supposed to happen by random mutations, so these random mutations just stopped, meaning they weren't so random after all? Living fossils are not proof of creationism, I'm not trying to prove Creationism, but it def is an issue in my eyes for TOE.

    Glad to see we are having more civil conversations now.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This is an excellent question!

    I know what "living fossils" are. The question is why have they not mutated? why did they not evolve by random mutations?

    They may have had mutations but these mutations may not have increased the ability of the species to survive and reproduce. The living fossils themselves likely had ancestry that were different from them. It is again, the state that they have stayed in for so long was the way they needed to be to survive.


    With bad mutations. We have them today with various genetic diseases. I can't think of any off the top of my head right now.

    We are probably not seeing any of these bad mutations because they were that. They were "bad mutations" so the organisms with bad mutations were picked off by a predator or may not have been able to reproduce. A bad mutation that occurred in a single individual would not have been as abundant in a population as individuals which had successful mutations. These successful mutations would be passed on to others. The bad ones were likely not.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I’d first like to address that I do not think that being a creationist constitutes someone being dumb, crazy, ect. Such a narrow definition is lacking and in reality it only takes the fact that you are human to be both dumb and crazy and a few other choice descriptors. And yet, despite all our blatant stupidity we have achieved some of the craziest things ever like traveling to the moon, or finding out that there are things even smaller than atoms. And with all this knowledge that we’ve amassed we’re still short in all fields! There is so much out there to learn that if you properly understood every secret in the universe your brain would explode from not being able to physically hold all that knowledge! This is why we invest so much money into things like Space Exploration, Deep Sea Research, The Human Genome Project, and understanding the origin of humanity. This is why we use the scientific method, because it provides something concrete and a proven testable system to discover the truth of the universe. And this is why scientist deserve that grant money you appear to be against them receiving for their research. So that they can prove or disprove their proposed hypotheses that they have already researched to an extended amount and have garnered the interest of an investing body, such as the government. If you think creationism/intelligent design deserves to be better studied then you have two options, present your research in a way to garner the interest of other investing bodies, or supply the money yourself.

    Macro Evolution can’t be shown occurring? Isn’t this the very idea as to why we’re digging up fossils in places all around the world where the muck and grime of millions of years has settled into the stone, only to be pushed up by the movement of tectonic plates? But even if you don’t accept fossils, what about the animals of different species that are so closely related that they can produce offspring, ei, tigon (tiger/lion hybrid) or the Mule (female donkey/male horse) or the Beefalo (American bison/domestic cow). Species different and distinct in taxonomy but similar enough still on a genetic level that they can still breed, and in some cases even produce viable and breedable offspring?

    I’d like to ask why it would have to be that the species being alive today would impact on the question of if it served as a transition from one form to another. The branch that starts a split does not necessarily stop when just one thing splits off from it. We still have amoebas and bacteria today that we had millions of years ago. We’ve even seen germs adapt in the course of less than a century to become resistant to drugs we’ve used. A number of bacteria have all adapted to the worlds over use of penicillin as a drug to the point where it now seems pointless to use it in all but a few situations still, like syphilis or infections caused by straphyulocci and streptococci. Another case of evolution that will continue to vex mankind for eons will be the common cold, something so weak and yet so adaptive that a single way to stop it has yet to be found that will last. What about the flu? That changes every year too, it changes so radically that even our own immune systems can’t keep up with it so now we have a new type of vaccine for it every year for people that want to stay in top shape with no chance of using a sick day.

    But I digress; you state you would like to see a transition between sea creatures to land creatures? Or at least I assume you do due to the fact you brought up Coelacanth. If so I then ask if you have examined the discovery of the Tiktaalik, a 375 million year old fossil discovery by Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler, and Farish Jenkins in 2006 during their 2006 expedition to the Canadian Arctic?

    ReplyDelete
  40. "there are currently approximately 32,000 known species of fish - both living and fossilized, and more are discovered - not evolved - about 200-300, per year. Some experts believe there was once nearly one million species of fish on the planet."


    "he fact that thousands of species of fish have been lost or not yet discovered adds nothing to Evolution, it merely shows that extinction is a very real thing."


    same thing with the coelacanth, it was thought to be until it was found alive, it it hadn't been found alive, it would still be used as proof right now, but it isn't. These are huge assumptions you take.


    Did you also know that dogs can interbreed? Should we also say that all breeds of dogs also evolved?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Andrew,

    Can I just say thank you for your post? Thank you. Thank you for your honesty and for your graciousness in your commentary.

    I earnestly agree with you. Religion is so dangerous. We get caught up in the rules and restrictions and utter chaos that can come out of religion and somehow the focus becomes just that. The rules. Religion can be and has been utterly scary in its negative impact on the souls of humanity.

    But religion is man-made. I think that's a key thing to remember. God did not create religion, man did. And that's not to say it wasn't create with good intentions. I believe man so desperately wanted to praise and show devotion to God that they created a movement for that to take place. What has happened over centuries is that instead of the focus remaining on God – on how to love and serve Him - it became self-focused or human focused.... and unfortunately more often than not it became human focused in a very negative way.

    Andrew I would like to tell you I am a Christian. I believe deeply in the power of Christ but I do not place my stake or my belief in religion. As I've told you....religion is man-made. Instead I call myself a Christian because I believe in following Christ. I believe in His story, in His never ending love, and in His sacrificial grace. And in calling myself a Christian I believe my job is to move, act, love, and pour as much grace as humanly possible onto everyone around me. Because that's Christ's story.

    I know Christianity has become somewhat of a “name tag religion". Men and women run around with their Christian name tags on and declare themselves better than all others. This to me isn't Christianity but yet another example of man taking something sacred and holy and using it for self-focus. This to me is the exact opposite of the actual message Christians desire to share with the world. I desire to share with you. And what breaks my heart is your commentary above, that ‘Christians have nothing to gain from these conversations’. Of course we do! We get to talk to you. We get to hear your heart and desires and questions. Your story matters. Your questions matter. And they should matter to us who believe Christ's message matters. Because the bottom line is the Christ I believe deeply in didn't sit down with those religious snobs, in fact He rebuked them! He sat down with every day people - you and me - and He loves us exactly as we were in that moment. And I still believe that is Christ's message. That He loves us unconditionally even if we don't understand Him.

    I'm not a Christian because it's popular or because it's easy. In fact it's insanely hard to be a Christian in today's world because - as you said - these religious nuts and these name tags and people who are picketing funerals of men and women who have selflessly served our country. Please hear this Andrew (if you hear nothing else from me) that is not the message of Christ. And I am so deeply sorry that that is the message people are running amuck with and claiming Christ upon. I am so sorry for the "Christians" who have hurt you, rebuked you, and tried to manipulate you. Please hear me when I say I do not see Christ in the midst of that brokenness but I see him mourning in it. At the end of the day Christians are still humans and humans fall short. We fail. We mess up. We become us focused instead of others focused. And when that happens – when the message of Christianity fails to remain focused on Christ and becomes focused on a specific denomination or religion - it becomes broken. We’ve seen it happen. It has happened to me, to so many of us, and I’m so sorry that that impact has in any way hurt you or those you love. That was never the intended message.

    Thank you for engaging in this conversation with Tim and with all of us.

    Your friend,
    Desirae

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ding Ding Ding! Dogs are a PERFECT example of evolution, specifically human influenced evolution known as selective breeding. All dogs’ ancestry can be traced back via DNA evidence to the first domesticated wild wolves, the grey wolf. When a dog was born with a desired trait that they wanted to proliferate the dog in question would be breed and those born showing the desired traits would then be breed again, sometimes with each other (inbreeding) in order to strengthen the odds of the next generation having a more prevalent showing of the traits in question. This is why we have so many massive numbers of different types of dog breeds, as well as mixed breed mutts. This is how we have dogs ranging from the tiny Chihuahua to the massive Mastiff. This is the crux of how evolution works, the random appearance of traits, the non-random selection of them (culling undesired traits, keeping desired traits in the gene pool), and then the spawning of the next generation which is given a random mix of the previous generations genes. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    ReplyDelete
  43. RayzorDragon, I mean no offense, but if you believe dog breeds are evolution, then you do not know much about evolution, at least macro-evolution. There is absolutely nothing new in the genetic code of all different dog breeds. They are adaptations, thats the same as saying that human races, all different races are a product of evolution and not of racial intermixing. At the end of the day, all dog breeds are exactly that, dogs, some bigger, different color, what have you but they are still dogs.

    If we were to breed short humans only, and kept breeding short and short humans, we would have a population of short humans, not a new species of humans. This is not evolution. Nothing new has been added, no new capabilities, just different physical appearances.

    ReplyDelete
  44. And I'm sure that if you kept this gene pool of 'short people' separated out from the human population long enough, that they would indeed soon constitute a new species of defined traits that would eventually lack the proper ability to breed with humans. Homo tolkien? Or maybe just Homo halfing? Perhaps we could do a time capsule like experiment, drop some small people down on a island, let them fend for themselves, and see where they are in a few hundred generations. Enough random mutations down the line from improperly replicating DNA being mixed together, magnified over a thousand generations or so in a limited gene pool, I don't think it'd be unsound to think that they could lose the ability to breed with Homo sapiens.

    Hey, Anonymous, how many short people are in your family?

    ReplyDelete
  45. So your proof is "you're pretty sure they would eventually lack the ability to breed with humans", even though you don't know, you say you're pretty sure. Well its been a long time since dos were bred from wolves and yet they can still mix.

    You don't think it'd be unsound to think that they could lose the ability to breed is not proof, I'm sure you agree that we can breed with human races right, even after all the supposedly years of evolution.

    This is an opinion, not a proof, but yet you speak of it very matter of factly.

    I won't even entertain the how many people are short in my family question as it seems a bit sarcastic, but it was just example, nothing to do me.

    ReplyDelete
  46. RayzorDragon,
    This Anonymous character(s) does not even understand what she (he,it) is even arguing against. Being a creationist they have no empirical evidence to support their relig... I mean creationist argument. As you can see they never tried to understand the science of evolution being that it is taboo of some ignorant religious circles. I wouldn't be surprised if this character would argue that the world was flat, aliens built the pyramids, jesus walked on water and pots of gold really do exist at the end of the rainbow. They don't even understand the concept of "reproductive isolation" which is key to the divergence of species. This person is just going to keep arguing about something they don't "believe" in because they never actually "learned" about it. It is like they are arguing by pointing out that they don't understand.

    I am going to re-state what Andrew said earlier

    "Why do believers come to the atheist for their science education? Why am I constantly bombarded with completely uneducated blibber blubber? Why does it fall to me to teach people how the world works?"

    This person is coming off so ignorant that I am wondering if we are dealing with a real creationist or a troll.

    http://knowyourmeme.com/i/1072/original/Trollface.png

    ReplyDelete
  47. I love it how Atheists resolve to personal attacks when they have nothing else to say. All you have mentioned are your opinions, not proofs, what you see as proofs in evolutions, I see as a bunch of assumptions.

    If you believe the world is flat, aliens built the pyramids, then go ahead, I haven't mentioned any of these absurdities.

    You are indoctrinated by Evolution and by listening way to much to Dawkins. Do you guys know you all sound and use the terms he uses.

    I argued against the fact that you think dog breeds are evolution, and thats absurd, it is not macro evolution, it is micro which is to me simple variation and adaptation. You make a huge leap from that to Fish turned into Giraffes over a few million years. Do you even understand the changes required for this to even happen. You take insanely complex and amazing event as the most simple thing without proof and all by chance. Maybe you do believe in the Pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "They don't even understand the concept of "reproductive isolation" which is key to the divergence of species"

    This is a dumb statement, I do understand, I just don't think this is proof of evolution, and you think I should jump on the wagon.

    Well, you don't even understand the concept of God, the amazing complexity of the universe and God, you are coming off so ignorant that I'm wondering if I'm dealing with a real evolutionist or just a troll.

    See the same can be said about your statement, I have not called you any names when you state your opinion, but you Atheists don't like other people having different opinions. You think you are so smart, but all you do is throw terms around as if no one else knows what it is.

    I know what evolution teaches, I know these things, I again believe them to be assumptions and fabrications. If you don't like my opinion, then stop replying to my comments.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous,
    I was openly addressing RayzorDragon.
    Let us take a look at this ignorant.
    (dictionary.com)
    1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated
    - he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid
    2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular
    - they were ignorant of astronomy
    3. Discourteous or rude
    - this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist
    4. Easily angered
    - I is an ignorant man—even police don't meddle with me

    I say you fit under about all of these.

    I'll go ahead and stake my claim at 3 because I have quit taking you seriously.

    Evolution is fact and is backed by empirical evidence. Creationism is not backed by empirical evidence. Creationism is backed only by "belief".

    "but you Atheists don't like other people having different opinions."

    My personal opinion, since you like opinions so much, is that i "like" others opinions as long as they are informed and educated. Thanks for telling me what opinions I have.

    "You think you are so smart, but all you do is throw terms around as if no one else knows what it is."

    I have never professed to be some kind of a genius.

    "I know what evolution teaches"

    If you claim to know what science teaches about evolution then don't whine and accuse me of throwing around terms. Any terms I have used were not meant to be difficult or over anyone's head.

    "I know these things, I again believe them to be assumptions and fabrications. If you don't like my opinion, then stop replying to my comments. "

    Know what? your beliefs?... Here we go again. Trying to believe something hard enough in the hope that it will become true. I'd like to see empirical evidence of this fabrication you so "believe" in. Oh wait... is a belief.

    People can "believe" that god is responsible for the sun coming up everyday but because of science I know it is because the earth's rotation. I don't have to stop replying to anything.

    I will reply when I feel like replying.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "I love it how Atheists resolve to personal attacks when they have nothing else to say. All you have mentioned are your opinions, not proofs, what you see as proofs in evolutions, I see as a bunch of assumptions."

    Nice, categorize and label all people that don't subscribe to religious nonsense. With assumptions :) What interesting statement.

    "If you believe the world is flat, aliens built the pyramids, then go ahead, I haven't mentioned any of these absurdities."

    You forgot that really absurd one about that jesus fellow walking on water.


    "You are indoctrinated by Evolution and by listening way to much to Dawkins."

    No thank you, I am critical and free thinker.
    Interesting "assumption"

    Nice argument... "You listen way too much to that scientist guy!"

    "Do you guys know you all sound and use the terms he uses."

    Not really but, if you know every sound and term he uses maybe you are the one listening to this Dawkins fellow a bit much.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I would like to apologize for anything hateful I may have said. I think that some of "jokes" or sarcasm took away from the discussion.

    ReplyDelete