Humans Do Not Need to Comfort Themselves With Fairy Tales

kellym78's picture

A response to Peter Bowden’s “God, Atheism, and Human Needs

Kelly O’Connor

Jan. 24, 2008

The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life. This is a multi-pronged deceptive ploy used to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for those actions and to keep people thinking that their assertion is correct.

Many people have either been raised without theistic belief or have abandoned theism and discovered even greater meaning and value for their lives. Peter Bowden assumes in his article “God, Atheism, and Human Needs” that proponents of atheism such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Onfray, and Dennett must provide “deeper insight into ourselves, our needs as human beings, and ways to conduct our lives.” In essence, a replacement for, rather than the elimination of, religion. Life does seem much simpler when all of the answers are handed to you on a silver platter (or aged papyri), but it eliminates the worthwhile exercise of introspection and discovery that one must engage in to formulate their own self-concepts, needs, and morals.

This makes Bowden’s claim that atheists are “[avoiding] a fundamental quest of the human race” even more absurd. Figuring these things out for oneself is infinitely more important, and difficult, than accepting an ancient dogma in its stead. Perhaps the reason why so many are opposed to self-examination is because it is exactly as I described it—exercise. It can be excruciatingly difficult to step outside of yourself, examine your beliefs, and dissect that which lies beneath your exterior. If one has been inculcated with the notion that whatever resides in there is dirty, depraved, and evil, that urge to integrate your beliefs and behavior will be furiously resisted and likely satiated with religion.

Being told that your worldview is incorrect and that it’s going to be a difficult process to regain your bearings once you realize that there is no grand plan for your life will often be interpreted as an attack. Even if doing nothing more than pointing out the harm that has been done under the auspices of piety, the news will not be received with accolades from the religious. Compartmentalization and rationalization (as in the psychological phenomenon) are fundamental aspects of maintaining any faith-based belief in the face of contrary evidence. Despite the common perception, it is not viciousness which compels us as atheists to speak out against religion. It is with the hope that we can help those who live under the ever-looming spectre of god’s presence to stop accepting the illusion of freedom and truly experience it.

Bowden points out that one of the charges frequently leveled against religion is its bellicosity. The reason that argument is so oft-used is because it is true. Religion has been the impetus for more violence than any other single reason throughout history. Was the acquisition of territory, resources, and power often a corroborating justification? Of course. Religion is unique, though, in the sense that it literally dehumanizes those with different beliefs, similar to the way that racism does. The adherents of a different religion are literally inferior to their opponents, and too often the drive to appropriate their land or wealth is intensified and rationalized by the division between the two groups. Evangelism has long been used as a cover for the usurpation of power from native inhabitants. After all, god would want to civilize the savages, now wouldn’t he? Certainly, religion is not the sole force, but it is definitely a contributing factor, and one that could be eliminated.

The two arguments that can be proposed to counter the case that the hazards of religion outweigh the benefits are the comfort and meaning it supposedly provides people and that religious groups may help less fortunate people. The latter is true, but only within certain confines. Missionaries who traverse the globe “helping people” often do little more than proselytize, and their aid may depend on your acceptance of their doctrine or willingness to attend church services. In the case of the catholic church in sub-Saharran Africa, it can actually be detrimental. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters may have similar prerequisites, although not all do.

Bowden asserts that “atheists are not into helping others in any organized way.” This is demonstrably false as there are more and more secular charities arising every day, but why would one expect there to be large charities funded by what essentially amounts to a non-group of people? Atheists are individuals with no churches and, until recently, little social networking. On an individual level, though, atheists are some of the world’s largest contributors to charities around the world. In fact, the number one philanthropist on Earth is an atheist. Ever hear of Bill Gates? How about Warren Buffet? That being said, I would encourage people to gather together and contribute in whatever way they are able, not to promote a group or a name, but to create a better world for every person. We are all united in the sense that we are humans sharing this planet, and that is infinitely more important than allegiances to imaginary dictators.

Bowden then comes full-circle back to the comfort/meaning/reason for living argument by claiming that we need a reason for being, that reason must be something “beyond the normalities of our daily lives”, and that religion provides it. First of all, I don’t know that making the claim that needing a reason for being is a fundamental attribute of human beings is entirely accurate, but it is plausible that most people desire that kind of affirmation.

This argument falls on its face in the next two steps, though. Why must this meaning be something greater than the daily activities in which we engage? Is life not made up of a series of days filled with these “normalities”? Normalities such as pursuing a career or education, caring for children, or just making it through this existence? What if there is no “greater purpose”? Will civilization suddenly vanish or will people adapt to being the agents in their lives instead of the pawns in a cosmic chess match? Furthermore, I will submit that religion only provides a façade of fulfilling either of the preceding “needs”.

Whether religion is an evolutionary adaptation making sense of a discordant existence or a spandrel of such processes, coming to terms with reality would only be the next step in our development. Holding on to the crutches that we once needed after the cast has been taken off is counter-productive, and as long as we do so, we will never run. Life can be frightening, bewildering, wonderful, and tedious. It can be mysterious, magical, and ordinary. It can be all of those things at once. Making up answers where there are none is not the solution, and in fact, prevents one from seeking answers themselves. Atheism is not the destruction of the quest for meaning—it is the necessary starting point for the journey.

 

Brian37's picture

magilum

magilum wrote:
Presuppositionalist wrote:
Quote:
The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life. This is a multi-pronged deceptive ploy used to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for those actions and to keep people thinking that their assertion is correct.

You cannot prove that. You have no reason to believe that. Fideism is a strong position. This is a ridiculous ad hom against the greatest minds of the past thousand years.

I'll engage it on the level it merits.

No, it's not.

Quote:
Presuppositionalist wrote:
The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life.

Magilum may not want to expond on this comment, and it is quite understandable because it has been, as a concept, beat like a dead horse, but I will expound.

Magilum is giving it no weight as an argument, as he should, for the same reason, "smoking cigarettees makes me feel good" is an argument. It may act as a crutch or an addiction or placebo but long term causes damage and isnt really good for you.

In laymen's terms, people do all sorts of superstitious things they think are harmless, but what is harmfull at a minimum, is the waste of time they could be putting to better use, and more often than not, what they think is helping them is merely a missfire and often quite harmfull.

The reality in laymens terms about why people believe in deities is not because deities exist, but because people project human qualities onto a fictional utopia. They are subconciously trying to excape their own mortality. Not accepting ones own mortality can shorten the ride or waste oportunities of finding ways extending the finite ride.

The missfire of believing in deities is not a sign of perfection or disign, it is a product of imperfect evolution.

I have to clarify "imperfect" because I know some theist dipshit will shout "AH HA!"

Life from a biological sense does not seek perfection, it does not seek to get better, although that can happen. Life merely seeks to survive and avantages are not a garuntee, environment and luck play a factor as well.

For example.

If I am in a dark ally, and I weigh 90 pounds soaking wet. And I am approached by a 250 mucle ripped guy with a knife who demands my wallet,.......if evolution were about perfection, the bigger guy would win always.....but what if I pull a gun on him and shoot him before he robs me? I have adapted. But it can also be that he slits my throat before I shoot him, in that case, he adapted.

Now, it is not about the strongest or the smartist, in terms of evolution. It is about the ability to adapt, and not always is it the strongest or the smartest, it can also be luck. 

Evolution is a combo of genetics, envornment and luck and none of those hold a hierarcy over the other. 

Evolution as a scientific study is not a claim of life seeking perfection, it is about how generations change adapt and die out or move on. 

DNA is is the roadmap back in time that shows the overlap speceis have in common. Evolution explains why year after year we have to make new vaccines for the flew virus. It keeps adapting and changing. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

No give us a break ~ no this isn't hate mail

If you hold true that you can see no evidence for the above, I guess the next logical question has to be 'Have you ever seen your own brain? 'and if not, 'how do you know it exists?' Before you laugh too loudly , THINK .!
One does not need faith to know there is a God.

kellym78's picture

singer7@muchomail.com

singer7@muchomail.com wrote:
If you hold true that you can see no evidence for the above, I guess the next logical question has to be 'Have you ever seen your own brain? 'and if not, 'how do you know it exists?' Before you laugh too loudly , THINK .! One does not need faith to know there is a God.

Actually, having had multiple MRIs, I have seen my own brain. Bet ya feel clever now, huh? Oh, and there was no time to do anything before I erupted into a hysterical fit of giggling at the stupidity of that comment. 

thingy's picture

singer7@muchomail.com

singer7@muchomail.com wrote:
If you hold true that you can see no evidence for the above, I guess the next logical question has to be 'Have you ever seen your own brain? 'and if not, 'how do you know it exists?' Before you laugh too loudly , THINK .! One does not need faith to know there is a God.

Deductive reasoning.  We know through scientific and medical research that brains are needed to survive and that it is in our brains that all thoughts and bodily commands (both concious and unconcious) come from.  Through that we can deduct that since we are living and (in some cases arguably) thinking, our brains must exist. 

It requires no faith at all.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/

Now we get to it

kellym78 wrote:

The only person in need of more reading here is you. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution, as you people like to put it. It is all one process over differing periods of time. The obvious speciation events occur slowly and are not generally observable within one lifetime. If you do not know that by now, then I fear you are likely too ignorant (or dogmatic) for any of us to hope to persuade you of the idiocy of your argument.

Keep up the attitude and we're going to have problems, k thx. 

Kellym has pointed out that given "millions of years and thousands of minute changes" a single celled organism will turn into a jellyfish. This is the leap of faith (and the fairytale) of the Evolutionist.

They admit that they have never observed the formation of a new species - yet they insist that animals are capable of such?

As I have constantly pointed out the theory that macro-evolution arises from micro-evolution has never been proven scientifically. It is a fairytale. They can draw pretty pictures and charts, but such is not proof of the position.

Kelly can make all the statements about this fairytale she likes, but such is not proof.

I am fully convinced of the scientific validity of micro-evolution: a finch remains a finch, a dog a dog, a fish a fish. Where is the evidence that a fish "over milliions of years" will become an iguana?

The Magic Wand of the Evolutionary Fairytale, as explained by Kelly above, is "millions of years." Hiding behind this phrase they claim they don't need evidence! And they claim that Creationists are "unscientific"?

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

kellym78's picture

Yeah, there's no evidence at

Yeah, there's no evidence at all. Just fossils and red shift and a 98.9% of shared DNA between humans and chimps, but that's all nothing. What were the dinosaurs? The reptile kind? Why don't you go hang out at answers in genesis where your mental ineptitude isn't as obvious.

kevinm1278's picture

Hm...

CalvinandHodge wrote:
kellym78 wrote:

The only person in need of more reading here is you. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution, as you people like to put it. It is all one process over differing periods of time. The obvious speciation events occur slowly and are not generally observable within one lifetime. If you do not know that by now, then I fear you are likely too ignorant (or dogmatic) for any of us to hope to persuade you of the idiocy of your argument.

Keep up the attitude and we're going to have problems, k thx.

Kellym has pointed out that given "millions of years and thousands of minute changes" a single celled organism will turn into a jellyfish. This is the leap of faith (and the fairytale) of the Evolutionist.

They admit that they have never observed the formation of a new species - yet they insist that animals are capable of such?

As I have constantly pointed out the theory that macro-evolution arises from micro-evolution has never been proven scientifically. It is a fairytale. They can draw pretty pictures and charts, but such is not proof of the position.

Kelly can make all the statements about this fairytale she likes, but such is not proof.

I am fully convinced of the scientific validity of micro-evolution: a finch remains a finch, a dog a dog, a fish a fish. Where is the evidence that a fish "over milliions of years" will become an iguana?

The Magic Wand of the Evolutionary Fairytale, as explained by Kelly above, is "millions of years." Hiding behind this phrase they claim they don't need evidence! And they claim that Creationists are "unscientific"?

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

Hm, I always thought that human reproduction supports the theory of evolution. When the human male ejaculates into the female, complete humans aren't the product. Instead, the tadpole-like sperm have to merge with the egg in the female, which also, resembles nothing of a fully grown, or even newborn human. Only once the sperm and egg have merged do we start to see signs of a human being. Over time the organism starts to develop organs, limbs, etc. We are actually more like amphibians when we just start off. As a matter of fact, we even have gill-like slits for some time while in the womb called pharyngeal pouches.

Here is some info I pulled off a site about them:

The pharyngeal pouches that appear in embryos technically are not gill slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that the same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos. Agassiz (not a Darwinist himself) said, "The higher Vertebrates, including man himself, breathe through gill-like organs in the early part of their life. These gills disappear and give place to lungs only in a later phase of their existence" (Agassiz 1874).

Darwinian evolution predicts, among other things, similar (not identical) structures in related organisms. That pharyngeal pouches in humans are similar to pharyngeal pouches (or whatever you call them) in fish is one piece of evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor.

That pretty much sums up what I am trying to convey. I'm not really good with words and all the technical shit, but I hope I was clear enough. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.

Proof not facts

kellym78 wrote:
Yeah, there's no evidence at all. Just fossils and red shift and a 98.9% of shared DNA between humans and chimps, but that's all nothing. What were the dinosaurs? The reptile kind? Why don't you go hang out at answers in genesis where your mental ineptitude isn't as obvious.

Why the hostility? I ask for some observed evidence that Evolution is truth, and you climb down from the tree and make statements about my intelligence? Hmmmm And I am supposed to be convinced by you?

The problem with your statement is that you are attaching the "fairytale" to some random facts. Arguing in your fashion one could say that there are green men living on Mars. When asked for proof of her assertion she will point to Mars in the night sky and say "Look! There's Mars!"

Just because Mars exists does not mean there are green men living on it. Just because there are a few fossils in the ground does not mean that Evolution is true.

Fossils are evidence of flooding and rapid burial. An animal carcass left out in the open is quickly devoured and destroyed. This is as factual as micro-evolution. A carcass left out in the open for "millions of years" will not be preserved. The bones will dry and disintegrate long before the Evolutionist has time to read her fairytale into them.

Universal flooding is evidenced by the fossils, because we see the same plants and animals "fossilized" in Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. The evidence of the frozen Mammoths, whose numbers stretch from Alaska to Siberia, show instantaeous freezing in standing positions, and some with food still in their mouths does not argue for "millions of years" in the snow.

I am not interested in arguing about dead bones with you, because you will place your "fairytale" of macro-evolution on them in the same fashion as the "green men from Mars" argument. Such is not profitable.

97% sounds great! But given the complexity of human DNA we have a difference of 90,000,000. In other words, Ninety million changes must occur in a Chimp DNA in order to turn it into a human. No wonder mathematicians call evolution impossible.

You get your information from DNA hybridization, but this method is faulty in and of itself:

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/DNAHYB/Dnahyb2.html

Also, Ape DNA has not been fully mapped. To make a "scientific" statement based on incomplete data is not rational.

But, then, according to your own views about "faith" I would not expect you to be rational concerning your religious views of evolution.

Recapitulation

Hey Kevin:

Thanks for the kind reply.

 I think you are referring to Haeckel's recapitulation theory developed in the 1800's. The idea that the human birth process mimics human evolution has been discredited, and is not a valid scientific argument for evolution. Wikipedia has an interesting article on this subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

Only the most extreme evolutionists still "believe" that Recapitualtion is valid. Stay clear of these people, because they will lead you - like they did to Kellym - into fanaticism.

 

Projection and certainty without the supernatural



Kelly's article is a great rebuttal to a pedestrian – bordering on feeble – effort by Peter Bowden to sustain the inanity of the human need for divinity. In my view, after twice reading Bowden's, God, Atheism, and Human Needs, I found more than a hint of "self-projectionism" from Bowden's own words. His pathetic argument can be parsed into the loathsome mindset that the human condition is too weak to endure and too fragile to progress without certainty in the supernatural.

Bowden further presents the tedious and blunted proposition that without a system of conviction in inerrant deities, humans would simply be unable to tolerate life, much less press forward, flourish, or act in a benevolent way.

A careful reading of his own missive on why mysticism is requisite gives credence to his own and obvious doubts of religion and a monotheistic god who, as Sam Harris aptly states, "If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil."

A sampling of Bowden's own assertions adds proof to the posit that he is in denial of his personal doubt in a celestial, all-powerful being. Take careful note as Bowden proclaims, "That over history the greater part of mankind has sought comfort against the fear of the unknown is an acknowledged fact. That we also seek comfort in difficult times is human. These needs may well be the root cause of religious beliefs...We need to have a reason for being, even though we may be no more than an accidental emergence from the primordial slime."

Perhaps accidentally, yet blatantly, Mr. Bowden exposes his own paranoia of a life without meaning; a view that plants the looking glass firmly in the uncomfortable path of his own insipid search for a mythological deity in order to assuage his own consternation. "The need for meaning, for purpose, is a base to our identity," Bowden declares, before nakedly insisting that this alone justifies man's demand to believe in the inscrutable notion of an imposing deity and thereby broadcasting folklore as fact, superstition as superlative to everyone else who shares his strife. "Insanity by consensus" is a suitable description of this type of collective psychosis.

However, man has created many gods that befitted him and then destroyed those same gods; casting these once inerrant deities onto the scrap heap of history when "God" no longer proved useful or sustainable. History clearly metes this out – and Bowden authenticates this by virtue of his exhaustive lists of past and forgotten gods – but is repeated, failed attempts to ascribe an imaginary, paranormal force to the "meaning of life" prudent or even rational?

The answer can be found in another passage by Sam Harris, "The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors."

Frank J. Ranelli

Sapient's picture

CalvinandHodge

CalvinandHodge wrote:

Kellym has pointed out that given "millions of years and thousands of minute changes" a single celled organism will turn into a jellyfish. This is the leap of faith (and the fairytale) of the Evolutionist.

Have you ever actually witnessed watched a sperm fo an entire 9 months transform into an actual person?  This is the leap of faith of the doctor, who expects a baby to be there at the end of the 9 months even though he didn't see the whole thing.  Haha... stupid doctors.  Doctors have faith, hahaha, I feel better now that I can insult people smarter than me by calling them names.  The names I choose to call them are "faithful" and "religious" I use these names as insults because I recognize how insulting they are theat I embrace them.  Haha evolutionists and doctors are full of faith!  Losers.

 

 

Quote:
As I have constantly pointed out the theory that macro-evolution arises from micro-evolution has never been proven scientifically. It is a fairytale. They can draw pretty pictures and charts, but such is not proof of the position.

Kelly can make all the statements about this fairytale she likes, but such is not proof.

GET TO READING IDIOT... 

 

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common ...

Macroevolution: The Evidence

Evidence of Evolution: Fossil Evidence of Macroevolution

HERE IS A COMPILATION OF A FEW HUMAN ANCESTOR FOSSILS:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

On Observed Speciation and Speciation Models:

Salamanders and Songbirds

More details on the salamanders, with additional links

London mosquitos

Another article on Himalayan song birds

Speciation by reinforcement

Lots of examples here

More examples

Speciation models

Links on examples and models

More on the London mosquitos

Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links

In Drosophila (fruit flies)

 


On Behavior, Reciprocal Altruism and the Evolution of Behavior:
Behavior models (registration required)
The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
Chimps show sense of fair play
Genes, altruism and evolution (with more links)
Reciprocal altruism
Kin selection and reciprocal altruism

On the Evolution of Complexity

Biochemistry
Evolution of human intellect and diet
Evolution of language
Music and the relation to language (registration required)
Evolution of religious memes
Bacteria flagella
Avida Digital evolution
More on the evolution of religion
Complex evolution in the laboratory
The eye
The brain

 


Quote:
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Your worried about stones hitting our roof?  We're worried about the stones you're supposed to be throwing at our heads if you were a good christian.

For cursing or blaspheming
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
 
For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
 
 
For disobeying parents (SICK DISGUSTING FUCKBAG ALERT!)
 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

 

For breaking the Sabbath
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56
 
Stupid sick fucks. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Sapient's picture

Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:
Quote:
The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries. They claim that even if god doesn’t exist or religion causes violence and hatred, it’s acceptable because it makes some people feel better about the harsh realities of life. This is a multi-pronged deceptive ploy used to abdicate themselves from any responsibility for those actions and to keep people thinking that their assertion is correct.

 

You cannot prove that.  You have no reason to believe that. Fideism is a strong position. This is a ridiculous ad hom against the greatest minds of the past thousand years.

 

Looks like it worked on you.  I mean c'min presuppositionalism?  Seriously it's for the dumbest of the dumb.  Worse off is your form comes with a pathetically overdriven sense of arrogance as you bolster around some of the most retarded and insane opinions the world has ever known.  I'd love to hear you defend presupping, have you done so anywhere on the site.  Have you read the articles by Todangst on the problems with it?  

Fideism is for cons.  They're cons to their parishes but worse off, cons to themselves.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Sapient's picture

CalvinandHodge

CalvinandHodge wrote:

kellym78 wrote:
Yeah, there's no evidence at all. Just fossils and red shift and a 98.9% of shared DNA between humans and chimps, but that's all nothing. What were the dinosaurs? The reptile kind? Why don't you go hang out at answers in genesis where your mental ineptitude isn't as obvious.

Why the hostility? I ask for some observed evidence that Evolution is truth, and you climb down from the tree and make statements about my intelligence? Hmmmm And I am supposed to be convinced by you?

 

Why the hostility? (answered)

More proofs to shove in your dumb arrogant throat.

 

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common ...

Macroevolution: The Evidence

Evidence of Evolution: Fossil Evidence of Macroevolution

HERE IS A COMPILATION OF A FEW HUMAN ANCESTOR FOSSILS:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

On Observed Speciation and Speciation Models:

Salamanders and Songbirds

More details on the salamanders, with additional links

London mosquitos

Another article on Himalayan song birds

Speciation by reinforcement

Lots of examples here

More examples

Speciation models

Links on examples and models

More on the London mosquitos

Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links

In Drosophila (fruit flies)

 

On Behavior, Reciprocal Altruism and the Evolution of Behavior:
Behavior models (registration required)
The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
Chimps show sense of fair play
Genes, altruism and evolution (with more links)
Reciprocal altruism
Kin selection and reciprocal altruism

On the Evolution of Complexity

Biochemistry
Evolution of human intellect and diet
Evolution of language
Music and the relation to language (registration required)
Evolution of religious memes
Bacteria flagella
Avida Digital evolution
More on the evolution of religion
Complex evolution in the laboratory
The eye
The brain

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

A rational response? Hmmm

Hi Sapient:

I thought that this was a "rational" website? Yet, Sapient breaks many of the rules of logic to make a point that is unclear. Where should I begin but at the beginning.

False Analogy: Sapient apparently wants to link the very real and empirical experience of childbirth with his fantasy of macro-evolution. A doctor can observe the mother, do ultrasounds, touch her bloating stomach, and do many other things that "prove" the baby in the womb. Is this the same with evolutionists? No. They cannot do any of these "tests" to prove their "theory." They have no observed evidence that proves their "theory" concerning dead bones (I will deal with Talk Origins later on.) A pregnant mother is a living feeling human being - a fossil is a dead bone that must be "interpreted" by the evolutionist. The two are not compatible.

I have constantly asked for evidence for macro-evolution. It is not my position to defend, but the evolutionists. Yet, I am verbally assaulted by an obvious ad hominen argument:

Quote:
GET READING YOU IDIOT!

Sapient claims that he wants to "help people" in his profile. One questions this desire in light of shockingly bad behavior. The words are all caps that generally indicates he is shouting. Hmmmm Would a rationial man resort to shouting when asked for simple evidence for his position? Hysteria does not denote reason ... but ... ah ... hysteria?

What partially "redeems" him (if I can use theistic language) in my sight is that at least he provides links that attempt to defend macro-evolution.

Citing Talk Origins is like asking a Yankee fan, "who is going to win the world series?" I have shown in other links that evolutionists are less than honest about the "facts," "evidence," and presentations. Talk Origins is a prime example of such.

But it seems that Mr. Sapient must do some reading on his own. Because the articles in Talk Origins have been ably answered elsewhere:

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

The reply by Mr. Theobald was less than expected. Instead of responding to the article, Mr. Theobald created a Straw Man, and attacked it. I would hope that the "rational" people on this site will be reasonable enough to condemn such a practice: Though my knowledge of human depravity does not give me much confidence in this direction - Especially seeing the poor manners of Mr. Sapient.

The old tired attempts by evolutionists to connect micro-evolution with macro-evolution have never resulted in any evidence that proves their attempts. They spin a fairytale around a few facts, and then ask you to disprove the facts. I will deal with one presented by kellym before.

If we are to assume that the claims of Evolutionists are true concerning the idea that Apes and Humans share 97% of their DNA structure, then what does this prove?

In order to prove his theory correct: the evolutionist would have to show how the Ninety Million (90,000,000) differences between Ape and Man happened gradually in exactly the right sequences over millions of years in order to differentiate the Ape from the Human.

Geneticists, however, have shown that those genes which are mutable do not affect the supposed "transition" between species - creating a jellyfish out of a single-celled organism, for example. Dr. John McDonald wrote:

Quote:
The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptationi has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those [genes] that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those [genes] that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations. From: "The Moecular Basis of Adaptatioin, "Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics," 93. (emphasis in original)

What is he saying? That those genes which are changeable like hair color, eye color, and skin color "do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes." And, those genes that are argued as grounds for major adaptive changes, like turing the fin of a fish into the leg of an iguana, "apparently are not variable within natural populations."

In other words: Those Ninety Million differences between Ape and Man are of genes that cannot be genetically changed. I could fill this blog with countless statements from scientists that contradict evolution from all the academic disciplines. Yet, even the most stubborn evolutionists will not relent to the facts.

Because the evidence is soooo overwhelming - especially in the fossils - the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould had to think up another fairytale to explain evolution - Neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. What he did was take a large step toward Creationism: The formation of species over a relatively short time is closer to the Creation accout than it is to original Darwinism.

I take it that Mr. Sapient is a "heavy-hitter" here, but if this is the best he can do, then I am not surprised that Atheism is intellectually bankrupt. At the end of his post he "screams" about the Bible. Yet, I have consistently said that I am not trying to "prove God" here.

Because you have to distort and deny facts - it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.

Using words like "reason" and "ignorance" and "idiots" does not make you yourself "reasonable."

kellym78's picture

CalvinandHodge wrote:

CalvinandHodge wrote:

Why the hostility? I ask for some observed evidence that Evolution is truth, and you climb down from the tree and make statements about my intelligence? Hmmmm And I am supposed to be convinced by you?

And your thinly-veiled insults were/are more appropriate ? And how does rudeness affect the validity of an argument? The hostility comes from the fact that having a conversation with people like you is about as productive as bashing my head repeatedly into a brick wall, but I do it as a public service. You can thank me later after your brain function returns.

Quote:
The problem with your statement is that you are attaching the "fairytale" to some random facts. Arguing in your fashion one could say that there are green men living on Mars. When asked for proof of her assertion she will point to Mars in the night sky and say "Look! There's Mars!"

Just because Mars exists does not mean there are green men living on it. Just because there are a few fossils in the ground does not mean that Evolution is true.

Fossils are evidence of flooding and rapid burial. An animal carcass left out in the open is quickly devoured and destroyed. This is as factual as micro-evolution. A carcass left out in the open for "millions of years" will not be preserved. The bones will dry and disintegrate long before the Evolutionist has time to read her fairytale into them.

Hey dumbass- a fossil isn't just made up of bones and carcasses - an impression left after the carcass has rotted is also a fossil. And depending on the climate and particular situation, a body can be preserved for quite some time.

" Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock. As the encased bones decay, minerals seep in replacing the organic material cell by cell in a process called "petrification." Alternatively the bones may completely decay leaving a cast of the organism. The void left behind may then fill with minerals making a stone replica of the organism.

Fossils can form in unusual ways. Small bugs or insects can become trapped in tree sap. Eventually the sap hardens and forms the semiprecious material called amber. In some pieces of amber the entombed remains of organisms can be found. Volcanic eruptions can form fossils when animals get trapped in the hot ash flows. In this case, the fossil is a hole in the shape of the animal."

http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html

 

Quote:
Universal flooding is evidenced by the fossils, because we see the same plants and animals "fossilized" in Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. The evidence of the frozen Mammoths, whose numbers stretch from Alaska to Siberia, show instantaeous freezing in standing positions, and some with food still in their mouths does not argue for "millions of years" in the snow.

Have you ever heard of this thing called "plate tectonics"? Some fossils are found over wider ranges--perhaps from Alaska to Siberia--because they used to be attached. If you are really this uninformed an/or stupid, I'm wasting my time trying to help you.


Sapient's picture

CalvinandHodge

CalvinandHodge wrote:

False Analogy: Sapient apparently wants to link the very real and empirical experience of childbirth with his fantasy of macro-evolution. A doctor can observe the mother, do ultrasounds, touch her bloating stomach, and do many other things that "prove" the baby in the womb.

Yes but is the doctor watching the whole time? No. This is because he has faith, haha, faithynanypoopoo. Doctors have faith, so do atheists, and we're all just as dumb as you. Feel better about your weak minded self now?

 

Now if you weren't so fucking stupid you'd realize that most doctors don't get to watch their patients over the course of the entire 9 months, and that empirical experience you referenced are abundant in evolution.

Quote:
Is this the same with evolutionists? No. They cannot do any of these "tests" to prove their "theory."

In the two hours since I posted the above data, you obviously didn't finish what took me over a year to decipher. I'm not gonna show you which links get you through to find your answers, your willfull ignorance is obvious.

 

Quote:
They have no observed evidence that proves their "theory" concerning dead bones (I will deal with Talk Origins later on.) A pregnant mother is a living feeling human being - a fossil is a dead bone that must be "interpreted" by the evolutionist. The two are not compatible.

You're presenting fossils as if their the only proofs of evolution. Go watch the aids virus evolve, and then tell me why it didn't exist at the time of Noah. Then tell me it's only micro, so I can shove this pen in your eye.

 

Quote:
I have constantly asked for evidence for macro-evolution. It is not my position to defend, but the evolutionists. Yet, I am verbally assaulted by an obvious ad hominen argument:

Shut the fuck up dipshit I just gave you 30 hours worth of reading and I specifically used scientists actually using your bullshit term "macro-evolution."

Quote:
Quote:
GET READING YOU IDIOT!

Sapient claims that he wants to "help people" in his profile.

I can't help you, I can only help people that want help. You don't want help, you're here to preach the word of your invisible friend and his insane sidekicks Dino Hovind Kirk Comfort. The closest I can come to helping you is the harshest and most accurate verbal assault you've ever gotten. You're getting plenty of the kindness from the other folks around you who don't have as short of a fuse for stupidity. You need to be told just how fucking stupid you are. But further than being stupid you are willfully stupid. You are purposefully ignorant. You find creative ways to dodge when you were just handed plenty of links to exactly what you ask for.

Do you remember these links?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common ...

Macroevolution: The Evidence

Evidence of Evolution: Fossil Evidence of Macroevolution

 

This is just for you retard...

Here's another 135 videos that will help you understand evolution. I expect another stupid post from you well before you've grasped these concepts because you are willfully ignorant.

 

"There is nothing more infuriating than willful ignorance, a principle that too many theists seem to embrace." - Sapient

 

 

Quote:
One questions this desire in light of shockingly bad behavior. The words are all caps that generally indicates he is shouting.

FUCK YOU!

Here want me to tone it down? {*LOWER pitch*} Suck my fuckin dick, you faggot. You happy now? - Eminem

 

Quote:
Hmmmm Would a rationial man resort to shouting when asked for simple evidence for his position?

If the person asking for evidence was asking for evidence that the sun is orange and the sky is blue and that person is ruining the planet with his stupidity then yes the most rational people would not only scream, they would do much more.

 

Quote:
Hysteria does not denote reason ... but ... ah ... hysteria?

Yeah, you're used to it, I know.

 

Quote:
What partially "redeems" him (if I can use theistic language) in my sight is that at least he provides links that attempt to defend macro-evolution.

Citing Talk Origins is like asking a Yankee fan, "who is going to win the world series?" I have shown in other links that evolutionists are less than honest about the "facts," "evidence," and presentations. Talk Origins is a prime example of such.

You're citing "true origin," hello mcfly? Mcfly? It's the yankees, who's gonna win the series?

 

Quote:
But it seems that Mr. Sapient must do some reading on his own. Because the articles in Talk Origins have been ably answered elsewhere:

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp <--- site built for morans

Actually had you thought to ask, I've browsed that site quite a bit. Thanks for not asking... I've read enough of that site to know they have no fucking clue what they're talking about. How ironic... just like you.

 

Now had you thought to maybe actually I don't know READ A LITTLE!!! You would have possibly come across the rebuttal to the piece of shit you submitted. Douglas responds to the shit arguments of your conman friend.

 


Quote:
I take it that Mr. Sapient is a "heavy-hitter" here, but if this is the best he can do, then I am not surprised that Atheism is intellectually bankrupt.

I take it that CalvinandHodge is a "nobody" here, and if this is the best he can do, then I am not surprised that theism is intellectually bankrupt.

 

 

Quote:
At the end of his post he "screams" about the Bible. Yet, I have consistently said that I am not trying to "prove God" here.

Fuck you, liar.

 

Quote:
Because you have to distort and deny facts - it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.

Ok, even that was too stupid for me to respond to. I'll leave my response up to the late Stephen Gould who has this to say you about evolution...

 

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - Stephen Jay Gould

 

Quote:
Using words like "reason" and "ignorance" and "idiots" does not make you yourself "reasonable."

None of this matters you know, coming from a moron.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Truth vs Evolution

Hey:

 Tut, tut, children, I can understand your heated responses, because your "faith" in evolution is being undermined. I have said that I could fill this blog with statements from real scientists who have come to realize that Evolution is untrue. I also said that I was trying to kick out the leg of evolution from the Atheist philosophy. Upon re-evaluating this statement I find I do not have to, because the leg is so weak and wobbly that it will fall on its own. Below are statements from non-Creation "real" scientists who have evaluated evolution from their respective disciplines:

Quote:
The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the protein' amino acid sequence is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series, From: Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pg. 289. 

Quote:
The probability of the convergent evolution of two proteins whit approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such a convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater, From: Erbrich, Paul, On the Probability of the emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function, Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 34, pg. 80.

The Fossil Record:

Quote:
Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its ovious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possiblity for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of 'missing links' ... once above the family level it becomes very difficult in most instances to find any solid paleontological evidence of morphological intergrades between one suprafamilial taxon and another. This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory ... the inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory, From: Boucot, A.J., Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls, p. 196.

To note: kellym's presentation of fossilization is generally correct. What she fails to realize is that such fossilization as bugs covered in amber are done rapidly. The animals are not given a chance to decompose. In regards to the worldwide phenonmena of animal fossilization where we find fossils on the highest mountains, the lowest valleys, and on every continent suggests a global flood.

Quote:
Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong y numerous subsequent scholars ... Unfortunately, evolutionary development and ontogenetical development are separate and distinct time-related biological processes which have an extremely complex relationship to one another that precludes a simple understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and sequences through study of ontogenetical mechanisms, From: Bock, Walter J., "Evolution of Orderly Law," Science, vol 164, pp. 684,685.

Quote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down, From: Darwin, C., (1872) Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), pg. 154.

And an evolutionary killer observation:

Quote:
It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths, while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place, From: Ho, and Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism - And Epigenetic Approach to Evolution," Journal of Theoretical Biology, 589.

Quote:
We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it is weak, From: Orr and Coyne, "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," American Naturalist, 726.

An open minded reasonable person will see the facts for what they are, and not what they want them to be. I don't think that these statements will "convince" those who are personally and philosophically committed to Atheism. Your problem is with God on a very personal basis. You use "evolution" as a smoke screen to deny God. But no "random process" no "natural selection" can deny what you know to be true in your heart. All of your sins can be forgiven in Jesus Christ. He says to you:

Quote:
All that the Father gives me shall come to me. And those that come to me I will in no way cast out, John 6:37.

Come to Jesus and find rest for your soul.

 

Archeopteryx's picture

Hey there,

Hey there, hodgepodge.

 

Where did you find all of these quotes? From a Christian apologist site? Let's see what you've got here.

 

Quote:
The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the protein' amino acid sequence is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series, From: Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pg. 289.

 

Michael Denton, huh? Didn't you say we were talking about real scientists and not creation scientists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

 

Oops!

 

Talkorigins even has a critique of his work:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

 

Quote:
The probability of the convergent evolution of two proteins whit approximately the same structure and function is too low to be plausible, even when all possible circumstances are present which seem to heighten the likelihood of such a convergence. If this is so, then the plausibility of a random evolution of two or more different but functionally related proteins seems hardly greater, From: Erbrich, Paul, On the Probability of the emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function, Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 34, pg. 80.

 

For one, Paul Erbrich is apparently a priest, so I'm already highly suspicious.

Second, a search for his name reveals that he recently met with a group of other scientists to discuss evolution with the pope, where he failed to convince anyone (if he was even trying to convince anyone) that evolution was entirely false.

Third, this quote isn't talking about evolution as an entire theory. It's talking specifically about the spontaneous formation of protein chains, which is more related to studies in abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution.

 

Quote:
Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its ovious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possiblity for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of 'missing links' ... once above the family level it becomes very difficult in most instances to find any solid paleontological evidence of morphological intergrades between one suprafamilial taxon and another. This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory ... the inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory, From: Boucot, A.J., Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls, p. 196.

Are you even reading your own quotes?

Here, I'll repost the really good part of that last quote:

Quote:

This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory ... the inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory

It's not an argument against evolution. It's commentary on the same bullshit you're trying to pull. You obviously didn't read this very critically.

Quote:

To note: kellym's presentation of fossilization is generally correct. What she fails to realize is that such fossilization as bugs covered in amber are done rapidly. The animals are not given a chance to decompose. In regards to the worldwide phenonmena of animal fossilization where we find fossils on the highest mountains, the lowest valleys, and on every continent suggests a global flood.

Actually, it only suggests that animals died in all of those places. You also have to consider things like glacial motion and plate tectonics.

Furthermore, a global flood would be impossible because there is only a finite amount of water in our water convection cycle. There is no place for that much water to come from and there is no place for that water to go to once the flood is over.

Furthermore, if that much water WAS in our atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure would rise to such intense levels that all life would have been crushed into pancakes (after our lungs exploded, of course). So a global flood wouldn't have gracefully peppered the planet with fossils, it would have destroyed them beyond recognition by grinding them into powder and mush.

Furthermore, a global flood could not have cleverly deposited fossils into an uncanny order of descending complexity BENEATH THE EARTH.

Furthermore, if there had been a global flood, geologists would be able to find a world-wide deposit of marine sediment, which has been looked for, and it doesn't exist. However, they did find an extremely large deposit of marine sediment (suggesting a very large--but far from global--flood) in the same area that mesopotamian tablets containing multiple versions of a story involving a man, a large boat, and an unusually large flood that kept him on open water for days, were also found.

Hmmm.... 

 You should really be more worried about the evidence against your own beliefs rather than spending all your time cherry-picking quotes in an attempt to mislead others into thinking that evolution isn't true.

 

Quote:
Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong y numerous subsequent scholars ... Unfortunately, evolutionary development and ontogenetical development are separate and distinct time-related biological processes which have an extremely complex relationship to one another that precludes a simple understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and sequences through study of ontogenetical mechanisms, From: Bock, Walter J., "Evolution of Orderly Law," Science, vol 164, pp. 684,685.

This quote is discussing the biogenetic law, which is a theory that is now discredited. It is not discussing evolution as a whole, which is a theory that has yet to be discredited, but very probably won't be.

Cherry-picker.

 

Quote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down, From: Darwin, C., (1872) Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), pg. 154.

Nothing wrong with that quote. Too bad it hasn't been done.

 

Quote:
It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated. A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths, while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place, From: Ho, and Saunders, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism - And Epigenetic Approach to Evolution," Journal of Theoretical Biology, 589.

Did you notice that part where he said "the successes of the theory"?

That was a good part.

Anyway, he's not saying that evolution is untrue. He's only commenting that there is less to say about how (speciation/abiogenesis) works. Again, this is much different than expressing reservations about the entire field of evolutionary biology itself.

 

Quote:
We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it is weak, From: Orr and Coyne, "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," American Naturalist, 726.

The neo-Darwinian view.... of what?

This is why cherry-picking is misleading.

Orr doesn't argue against evolution, though he is very critical of some of the sub-theories put forth by others.

Here is some wiki info on him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Allen_Orr

 

Quote:

An open minded reasonable person will see the facts for what they are,

That you are a cherry-picker that probably copy-pasted these from other sites and that you like to hunt diligently for information that disproves the view of your opponent while failing to put your own views under the same critical light? I agree.

Quote:

and not what they want them to be. I don't think that these statements will "convince" those who are personally and philosophically committed to Atheism.

Atheism and evolution are not synonomous. There are plenty of arguments against Christianity that have nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. The hole you have to dig yourself out of is much deeper and hopeless than that.

Quote:

Your problem is with God on a very personal basis.

It's hard to have a personal vendetta against a someone that you don't believe exists.

Quote:

You use "evolution" as a smoke screen to deny God.

Again, evolution is not synonomous with atheism. This goes back to that thing I was saying about your failing to honestly look at the information on both sides.

Quote:

But no "random process" no "natural selection" can deny what you know to be true in your heart. All of your sins can be forgiven in Jesus Christ.

A complete non-sequitur if there ever was one.

Quote:

He says to you:

Quote:
All that the Father gives me shall come to me. And those that come to me I will in no way cast out, John 6:37.

Come to Jesus and find rest for your soul.

I prefer reality, thanks.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.

   CalvinandHodge writes

   CalvinandHodge writes " Come to Jesus and find rest for your soul. "  

but, I AM JESUS AIN'T YOU ? Cool 

CalvinandHodge wrote: Quot

CalvinandHodge wrote:

Quote:
An open minded reasonable person will see the facts for what they are, and not what they want them to be

And until you let loose the rigid confines of your indoctrination and the chains of dogma that enslave you, you will never for even a single moment know how this feels.

Projection of this magnitude leaves one w/ nothing but very poor mental health. 

"Philosophy is questions that cannot be answered.  Religion is answers that cannot be questioned." 

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

Quoting the Bible?

You do realize that quoting the Bible to respond to an argument is in and of itself a logical fallacy?

You assume the Bible is true, and more importantly, you assume that the reader of your comment will assume it's God's word....

Hitting a brick wall

Thank you DuckPhup for an excellent explanation of evolution. The problem is that when such a well-put-together argument is presented, evolution deniers simply ignore it and continue on in their misguided argument, as CalvinandHodge did (I don't know how a theist can demand that you witness something in order for it to be real and not realize the blatant hypocrisy).

But the reply was not wasted. I'm copying+pasting it into a word document that I will refer to in the future (if you don't mind).

  Yeah DuckPhup me too,

  Yeah DuckPhup me too, and don't forget your silly side too. Getting drunk with Duck would have to fun.

,and hey, some fantasies are just too good to abandon,    

 "Kelly loves me,

I love Kelly

Oh Kelly , ..... " Smile 

but that ain't no fantacy, I can feel the love! )

response "Prove to me that any of the..."

Jesus doesn't use magic.  And how do you know what Jesus looks like?  (by looking at your picture)