I’m really excited, because a creationist actually wrote a blog post about me. Okay, to be fair, I did comment on one of his posts, sent to me by Dave the Happy Singer, but that’s not really the point. The point is, he responded to what I said with a blog post!
The post in question is about Tiktaalik, a transitional fossil between fish and amphibians discovered in 2004 on an island in northern Canada, and its status as such a fossil. The creationist blogger in question is Marcus McElhaney, and his blog is called What had happen’ was…. This is my response… to his response.
Just so you know, my comments are blue, his comments are red.
The reason why we don’t have an unbroken line of fossils is that fossilisation is a rare process, and certain conditions must exist for it to take place. Shallow seas are a great place to find fossils though (accounting for why about 90% of the fossils we have are from marine creatures), so we should probably find more Tiktaalik-esque fossils in the near future.
I have no problem with your explanation as to why we have no transitional records indicating direct descent from fish to amphibians. It’s plausible. It’s logical. You only omit one possibility: There aren’t any to find.
That, of course, is a possibility, but… it contradicts the genetic evidence that strongly points towards the inter-relatedness of all living things. The only mechanism we know of that can produce similar genetic sequences is heredity, and, no, a common designer is not an explanation, because it cannot be falsified. Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.
Oh, and one small correction (for myself): Tiktaalik was actually found (and therefore lived) in an ancient river, not an ancient shallow sea. My bad.
I don’t see any “goal post” moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people.
Mmm, but you wanted a transition, you got one, then asked for a full, unbroken sequence. You moved the goalpost.
I asked for a transitional fossil proving that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Not for transitional fossils showing common links for today’s fish and amphibians. Look at the context in which I wrote that post reviewing Nephilim Rising. I didn’t move any goal post. David expanded the playing field.
This is kind of a moot point, and doesn’t really prove anything, so I’m just going to leave it. Think what you will.
“Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: “In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1″
Well, I wouldn’t read the Bible for that. It’s incompatible with modern scientific findings (if read literally).
I’m not sure what by definition: do you mean “explanation”? If so, I don’t have one at the moment, no one does.
The Bible has a explanation. It does not give details as to how He did it. That is what scientific inquiry is for. God allows you to accept or reject this explanation. But nothing else makes sense. Something came out of nothing. Physics agrees with this. Some how Entropy became less than 0. Order came out of nothing. Direction-less, random processes does nothing to explain the origins of reality let alone life. The Bible does not answer all questions and not all of it is to be read literally. There is debate as to what it means to say that earth was created in 6 days. Was each 24 hours as we measure them today? Or was it many eons? We don’t know. The Hebrew does not specify. What we do know is that God can do anything. If he wanted to do it in 6 24-hour days, I see no reason why not.
So, you’re saying that the explanation is true by default (that the Bible is true in the way it describes things), and it’s science’s job to find out how? Firstly, how could science find out how? It was a supernatural event, and therefore you could say warp absolutely any data by just saying that God changed the laws of nature at that point. Not an explanation, I’m sorry. Again, unfalsifiable, not worth bothering about.
Secondly, who says something came out of nothing? Not the scientific evidence. The Bible does, but we can reject that from the conversation because you would believe what it says regardless of what I say. “Physics agrees with this.” Show me, show me how it does.
Thirdly, what are your reasons for rejecting the, understandably, incomplete hypothesises about abiogenesis? The Bible? Sorry, not good enough. Do you have any scientific reasons? Are any of them not found on this page?
Fourthly, why are some parts of the Bible not to be read literally? How do you know this? Does the Bible say so? Or are you just cherry-picking to make sure it complies with what science you do accept?
Fifthly, why would God create the Universe is 6 days? Couldn’t he do it in zero seconds if he wanted to? (This point is not a main one, so don’t devote millions of words going off on a tangent. I’m just curious as to what you think.)
First of all, “Evolution News and Views” is run by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design thinktank that, for all intents and purposes, is a creationist organisation.
“Intelligent Design” does not equal “creationism”. Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. I think they’re nuts…but at least they have enough sense to know that you don’t get anything complex by chance. If you do, then I have some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell to you.
See, you define “creationism” as your brand of Biblical literalism, but most definitions will define it as any explanation of “creation” (being life, the Universe etc., but not necessarily more than one or all of them) involving a supernatural entity. The Discovery Institute is basically a creationist organisation, are heavily biased against evolution (as opposed to being “balanced”, like they would claim), and have stated this right here. (Note: The link is to a copy of a document that was written for the Discovery Institute, and is not hosted on the DI’s website)
I know what you’re thinking because you already made the point that evolution is driven by many factors. None of these factors are in a vacuum or can be thought not to interact with each other. Let’s say, that the Judeo-Christian God is not responsible as some folks say. Even so don’t you think anyone able to design life on earth would also be able to manipulate all those factors too!
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Sorry. Could you please restate this?
Secondly, to debunk the claims found in those articles, I would have to spend time looking up stuff. I don’t want to do that now, but I may do that in the near future. Look out on http://naontiotami.com to see if I ever do get around to it (I have to write an essay for the Discovery Institute Academic Freedom Day contest, so it might be after that).
I look forward to seeing you try to explain the holes these scientist who disagree with the theory of evolution easily points out.
In time, in time. I promise, there will be explanations.
I hope Marcus responds. I would love to know exactly what he thinks about evolution and such!
Great response Jack. So many logical fallacies in his arguments and statements that I find it frustrating to read and take seriously.
He said,
in regards to the Discovery Institute. Interesting when MANY of the people who work there ARE self declared biblical creationists. Hmmm so if they are nuts, mayyyybee you might be nuts too? :O I am just trying to point out the obvious contradiction here.
I never said that they were nuts. I said people who claim to be atheists but reject evolution are nuts. I never said that those who work at the discovery Institute think that. I am merely saying that there are some people who are either lying about their views and trying to use Intelligent design as a disguise for Creationsim. And that there are some of them that hate Creationism as much as you do.
Yes you did. At least that's how it reads in the above text. Perhaps its just bad wording?
Where? I never said that the Discovery Institute was nuts. What I did say was that people who push intelligent design but reject God are nuts.
If this is the case then you worded it horribly. It certainly looked like you called the DI nuts as a whole.
I doubt any of them HATE creationism. It is in their wedge statement that it is their goal to promote biblical creation and bring people to Jesus.
Amen then.
I still would like to know where you read that?
I wrote "Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. I think they’re nuts…but at least they have enough sense to know that you don’t get anything complex by chance."
What is so confusing. "I think they’re nuts…" refers to the people who do believe in in Intelligent Design but do not believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. Is English your primary language?
Amen, they are dishonest pricks
It isn't a good thing that they state this in their wedge doc. It shows they are openly being dishonest (they did all they could to suppress the wedge doc once it became public).
I am not sure why you find this agreeable. Being dishonest in order to lead people to Jesus? If Jesus really existed I doubt he would of wanted people to do that :S.
There is nothing wrong with promoting biblical creation. It's dishonest to try to trick people. My point is that not all people who push Intelligent Design are Biblical creationists. You cannot equate the two. For me they are the same, but not to everyone. Some people claim that it isn't when that really is their agenda and that is dishonest. And does nothing to point to Christ .
**OUR** point and focus was about the Discovery Institute. Do you think it is good that they are a actually a Christianity based organisation and they lie about their aims? because you said "Amen then". I am trying to understand what you mean, but you keep changing "what you meant". Say what you mean and mean what you say from now on please. It will make debate much easier and more enjoyable as we won't have to cover old ground over and over.
**edit/ also just as a note, why are IDers who don't believe in a god any less nuts than someone who believes god did it? They could believe Aliens did it etc. This i find to be much more believable than a sky daddy who is there, but also isn't.
English is my primary language, but the sentence you wrote was misleading (probably on my fault). Further more i was stating that they are infact a biblical creationist propaganda organisation. They ARE in line with your views OFFICIALLY according to their wedge doc (GOOGLE IT). So I was merely trying to point out you basically called yourself nuts…
fa
um, no. I did not call myself nuts because I believe God really did intelligent design. I called people who believe in intelligent design but deny God did it nuts. You really did not understand. I have never change what i mean. It's wrong to mislead people. But some people, not me, do not equate intelligent design with creation. I hope that clears it up.
I understand what you are saying. But, you made those comments about ID as an inset to the comment about the Discovery Institute. Do you see what I am saying? And while we are being ad hominem about English being my first language, check your spelling and sentence structure ASAP.
You also said "AMEN THEN" to when i mentioned the DI as a biblical creation propaganda organization. Why did you say that? You still haven't answered…
So I was right. You do think it is good to lie in order to get people Jesus'd. You chose to squirm and slither away from my question. Why did you say AMEN THEN? I want to know. If you cannot answer I will assume it is because you cannot answer it and that you are dishonest by nature.
Grasping at straws are we?
I never said that lying is good. I replied to the e-mail and not in the forum. I thought you got it. No? I'll repeat. It is wrong to try to trick people with Intelligent Design when you are really trying to get them to accept creationism. I was saying "Amen" to promoting biblical creation and bringing people to Jesus not lying about it or misrepresenting. As you have done to me. side i have thous stated all this in other postings over the past week during these exchanges.
I said all of this in the other postings during the exchanges in the past week. (sorry, keyboard did not keep up with my typing.)
You back peddle so often I find it laughable. Read through all your comments.
At the beginning I told you to say what you mean and mean what you say. You ignored these good advice. It shows. "Oh I didn't mean that…i meant this…oh not that this etc" BLAH BLAH
You are the liar not me. You said I said something I did not say. Your mistake not mine. Admit your own faults. I never changed anything in what I said. Whatever makes you able to sleep soundly at night is fine. They lied on Jesus too. People still do. A servant is never better than his master. I'd expect no less from you. You obviously think I have said something I never said. Hooked-on-phonics might help you.
HUH!? You said it. Why it is there for everyone to see. Now you are back peddling. You are dishonest. READ YOUR POSTS.
Contradict where? how? Prove it. Enough with empty assertions.
Jack, I think you maybe wasting your time trying to reason with this person, as the old saying goes:
“Never argue with an IDiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
I think using it as a training experience is valid though. Depends on how patient you are
But it's FUN!
Hey, you never know. You could convince someone, or at the very least plant a seed of doubt. Or, plant a seed of doubt in someone else. It's all worth it in the end.
I can't get the colors to show up in my comments So I'll just post on this at this link
http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/01/take-red-p...
I don't think you are wasting your time. I'm sure many people find the way you eviscerate your opponent very interesting. Personally, I always learn something from it, and it confirms my existing belief that treating the opponent as intelligent but mistaken is far more productive and effective than succumbing to the urge to be belittling.
although when you have tried everything else, succumbing to that urge can be somewhat of a guilty pleasure
It sure is, but no one believes it just popped into existence from nothing at all. Many God's are attributed with creating the universe ex nihilo, which we are also told is impossible when believers drag out the battered strawman of "the big bang says nothing exploded". To posit an all powerful creator only begs the question and no argument I have ever heard adequately explains the existence of this creator (indeed, the only "argument" seems to be "oh – he was just always there."). Certainly no evidence of this is ever presented.
Here you are just showing your vast ignorance of the subject. Look at DNA, compare the similarities between species, and explain the unbroken nested sets contained therein. The numbers are so staggeringly in favor of evolution that no other explanation even come close – especially "my magic sky daddy did it all".
It's not impossible for the universe to be ex nihilo. This is a current and legitimate theory in physics. And the creator…"the uncaused first cause" is the only explanation that fits whether you like it or not.
DNA is too complicated and too well put together for it to have just randomly evolved. You are making my point for me. If God didn't do it then who did.
By the way I listened to a wonderful lecture today by an expert in clinical psychology whose hypthosis is that the reason why some atheists find it difficult to accept God is because of their own "Daddy issues" It's hard to imagine a "magic sky daddy" if your own wasn't much of a father.
You do realise that you've insulted every single atheist in the entire world with that comment? That is just insulting.
Why can't the Universe be its own cause? Why does it even have to have a cause? God supposedly doesn't have a cause. What's the difference?
"Too well put together"? Uh, no. Do you know what junk DNA is? Do you know what ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) are? Those things (and more) point to DNA being not very well designed at all.
And, evolutionary theory can easily explain why DNA is the way it is. Don't say it can't.
[You do realise that you've insulted every single atheist in the entire world with that comment? That is just insulting. ]
Do you know this evolutionary biologist called Richard Dawkins?
He's been calling people deluded for their beliefs , called people stupid, wicked or ignorant for not accepting his particular scientific theory in his field of study and called Christian parents "abusive" just for passing on their beliefs for their children. I find Marcus' comment rather tame in comparison
No it isn't. He directly related "bad fathers" with Atheists. Ridiculous and credulous. Saying people who are religious are deluded isn't inherently offensive, it is mere fact. And people who REFUSE to understand a basic theory that is well accepted with intelligent scientists who have put the time and effort into actually studying it, are ignorant. Look up the word ignorant. It isn't actually an offensive word.
It is fine to call someone deluded when they are.
[Saying people who are religious are deluded isn't inherently offensive, it is mere fact. ]
Can I call atheists deluded then?
[And people who REFUSE to understand a basic theory that is well accepted with intelligent scientists who have put the time and effort into actually studying it, are ignorant.]
What happpened to science and progress? If we just all accepted whatever theory was popular at the time we would still be stuck with Aristotle's theory of gravity. I don't see what's wrong with not acceppting a theory.
I think Richard Dawkins happens to be right (for the most part) when he talks about children and "religious child abuse". You tell people that they'll go to Hell and burn forever if they don't do this or that and love Jesus. I think Richard Dawkin's comments are tame compared to THAT.
Plus, most of you ARE deluded. Creationist, no matter what you think, are deluded. You simply don't understand evolution. This has been demonstrated by basically every post a creationist has ever made on this blog.
I think Richard Dawkins happens to be right (for the most part) when he talks about children and "religious child abuse". You tell people that they'll go to Hell and burn forever if they don't do this or that and love Jesus. I think Richard Dawkin's comments are tame compared to THAT.
Plus, most of you ARE deluded. Creationists, no matter what you think, are deluded. You simply don't understand evolution. This has been demonstrated by basically every post a creationist has ever made on this blog, and in every discussion that I've seen involving a creationist.
In my opinion, and I whole lot of other people's as well, creationists wouldn't be creationists if they understood what they were opposing.
I find that last comment abhorrent. My father was a great person who I love dearly. That idiot HACK psychologist is wrong.
In regards to the other weak arguments you brought up, Arguments from ignorance.
Well, the DNA one is an argument from personal incredulity.
I know there are theoretical physicists working hard to solve equations showing a universe ex nihilo, but I am not aware of any valid theories yet. Perhaps you can point me to some?
DNA is no more complex than any other natural chemical reaction. We know the chemicals involved, we know the bonds, we can predict the results. DNA is simply nature taking its course – chemicals react.
The assertion that "it is simply too complex to have formed by accident" is an argument from incredulity. It is no more convincing than any other "I can't believe that to be too" arguments.
Why is a God required for a natural phenomenon? If we are to attribute a God with such powers, then by extension he is also responsible for the amazing structures of the Ebola, Smallpox, and Influenza virus. How do you reconcile this with an all loving God?
[It sure is, but no one believes it just popped into existence from nothing at all.]
Well I happen to know several atheists who think so but I'll let that slide.
[to posit an all powerful creator only begs the question]
Do you even know what question-begging is?
[ and no argument I have ever heard adequately explains the existence of this creator]
So what? Imagine finding and alien spaceship in Area 51. Wait !!before we say this spaceship was designed we have to explain how the aliens
reached earth and evolved and… You don't need to explain every single thing about a creator to know that something was created. Whether it be a car, an alien spaceship or the universe.
Finding an alien spaceship is not a good analogy for describing god. Rethink that one.
People who are misinformed will think the universe popped out of nothing, or god made it. (same thing btw)
Like anyone else, atheists can be wrong about things.
Your design argument rest solely on shaky logic. Just because things *look* designed, does not mean they *are*. If the universe is so complex it just must have had a designer, then the designer must also be at least as equally as complex, thus also requiring a designer. To terminate this infinite regress by waving your hands in the air and saying "God was always there" does not make anymore valid than saying "the universe was always here" (except we know the universe exists). Why complicate the answer with a deity? Occam's razor slices him off.
[then the designer must also be at least as equally as complex,]
Why? You just assert that. Traditional theology holds God to be a simple being.
[does not make anymore valid than saying "the universe was always here" ]
But the problem is that there is a great deal of evidence against the universe always being here.
I do find it interesting that the conversation meanders from evolution to the origins of life. Then asks you to prove such and such scientist wrong. Kitchen getting too hot?
Most creationists see the origin of life and evolution to be the same. They lump them together (along with the origin of the Universe and the origin of the Earth) into something they call "The General Theory of Evolution", which is basically everything that disagrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Of course, it doesn't exist, but creationists like to think it makes there job easier. :p
Oh I see the general theory of strawmen
The origin of the universe and the origin of life in it are not the same thing….agreed? But you can't talk about the origin of life without the origin of reality they go together. If you want to restrict the discussion to how life has evolved since admittedly you have nothing to say about how the universe got here (and evolution is not designed to answer this question anyway), I'm willing to stick to evolution. The origin of the universe is impossible for you to answer. And evolution is not possible to validate. Sound like some people are up a creek.
I'd like Marcus to explain his theory for how we arrived at the curretn state of affairs in regards to the diverse (but shrinking) nature of life on the planet. Very easy to sit back and find holes in scientific knowledge. But not so easy to posit an alternative theory and back it up with evidence.
More like "attempt to find holes". Or "think that the holes you find are significant".
Isn't that what you do with the Bible?
I don't attempt to find holes in the Bible because it contradicts science. It is a book. It is an old religious text. I needs to prove itself, not the other way around. I'm sorry, that's just the way it works.
Where does it contradict science? Have you ever picked it up and actually read it? Have you ever given it the opportunity to prove itself? Don't you know that it will stand up to scrutiny? No, you don't know. I'd invite you to look at it for yourself and then see if you write what you did with a straight face.
Well, it details the creation of the Earth, which is not compatible with modern geology. It details the sudden creation of all life on Earth, which is not compatible with evolutionary theory. It details the creation of the Universe, which is not compatible with cosmology.
If you think they are compatible, please state how.
Of course, listing the scientific inaccuracies in the bible goes way beyond the capacity of a single comment, but let's start with something small – zombies.
Jesus was one and many rose from the dead and visited the cities when he "died" on the cross. Given we have never seen anyone come back to life after being dead for 3 days, I would say this contradicts known science. Do you have any evidence that this actually happened? Anywhere? Ever?
You gotta be kidding. Jesus was not a zombie. You are just showing how biblically illiterate you really are. Zombies have no soul. Jesus' resurrection was a miracle confirming that he is who he says he is. Read my blog postings on Jesus at mmcelhaney.blogspot.com and for goodness sake pick up a Bible and read it.
Who the crap says Zombies have no soul, who defines what zombies have and do not have? ZOMBIES AREN"T REAL. That is what he was trying to say. Jesus resurrected from the dead JUST AS A ZOMBIE WOULD. For all you know, zombies could be divine entities, so lay off zombies man…jeez marcus
I guess 15 years of Bible study in Christian schools and growing up next to my Grandfather's church does not qualify in your books? I have read the Bible – it's all crap (and I say this after deep examination).
I am glad to see you have acknowledged the existence of zombies, but I am bewildered by your assertion that they have no souls. Please tell us, what evidence lead to to reach this conclusion? The resurrection is a fairy tale told to scared little people to dilute the fear of death we all have. There is no evidence to say it really happened apart from a few contradictory stories from a book of fables written over 2,000 years ago by ignorant goat herders.
[I guess 15 years of Bible study in Christian schools and growing up next to my Grandfather's church does not qualify in your books?]
Well if you confused voodoo practises with ancient Jewish beliefs I wonder what the heck you learned at that school.
[over 2,000 years ago by ignorant goat herders.]
(I don't think anyone dates the gospels that early). And I don't think any of the gospel writers were goat herders. If we go with traditional authors Matthew was a tax collector, Mark was a scribe, Luke was a historian, John was a fisherman and Paul was a pharisee
Voodoo, Jewish beliefs, Christians, Muslims, and Scientologists all share the same thing – they are all make believe. I will not split hairs over which one is more stupid than the other.
At least we can agree that it did not occur to the gospel writers to record any details of these amazing events until decades after they supposedly happened. Don't you think this is rather odd?
Prove that none of the writers were goat herders. Prove they were who you say they were.
I could imagine you telling your English teacher. "prove Shakespeare wrote these plays and not some goatherder". Never mind the fact that everyone acknowledges he wrote it or his name is on all the ancient copies….no a goatherder wrote it and deceived us all
askegg- Zombies are a concept from Haitian voodoo. A resurrection was a 1st century Jewish belief. That would be like telling a Norse pagan he believes in Mount Olympus
And one question.
When has science "proven" that Zombies or ressurections do not
happen? Please cite some sort of study preferable one that is peer-reviewed or by some guy with PhD that said that resurrections and/or zombies never do occur.
The origin of the word is not in question – the fact that dead people come back to life and walk around is. Besides, what makes the Haitian voodoo belief ridiculous, while the mythical story of the resurrection so true?
I am not making any claims here. You made the claim that zombies exist and are animate matter without souls. I am merely asking for evidence proving the existence of souls and zombies before I might consider your claims accurate. The burden of evidence is on you, my friend.
If I were to make the claim that leprechauns lived in my sock drawer, you might request evidence that this is indeed the case. You would not find it sufficient evidence if I turned around and said "Prove to me they don't". That's the way it works.
If it is a Haitian Voodoo belief (and it is traditionally) why does it appear by definition in the bible also?
You seem to think science is meant to show that things don't exist. NO, people who make claims that SOMETHING exists have to show this with evidence. If you think zombies have existed or exist YOU must show this through evidence, not the other way around. We are Azombieists until evidence is shown that they exist or have existed.
askegg made the claim that zombies contradict science. I was asking him to support this claim. Seems he flubbed a little there.
c'mon people I'm waiting for the proof that you have transitional fossils as the ancestor of a living, breathing species today. You produce that you have won a point. Without that you have nothing. I've been asked to pose an alternate theory. I did. I'll repeat, this time slowly: God created the heaven and the earth. He created every thing lives and has ever lived on this planet and determined when and how they lived. Beginning of story. Science is about understanding how that works.
No one says they have EXACT TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS of the creatures that are ALIVE today. They have transitional fossils of organisms that may or may not be alive today. Tiktaalik is one of these fossils. We don't know if it is THE ANCESTOR of tetrapods, but we are sure (based on the evidence, morphology etc) that it is closely related to the ANCESTOR
Reminds me of the movie spaceballs
I'm your sister's cousin's half-brother's college roommate?
What does that make us?
Absolutely nothing
This is not a reply or anything of use to this discussion.
Uh, no.
Tiktaalik (and other "fishapods") are evidence that creatures like what we would predict if fish and amphibians evolved from a common ancestor existed in the past. They are evidence for the common ancestor of fish and amphibians existing? Do you understand that, Marcus?
sure it is. It shows that you can't prove they are related. I understand what you guys are saying. Thinking that "fishapods" shows that there may have been a common ancestor of amphibians and fish. However, you can't produce that animal. How do you know it exists? Your misguided faith.
It's not faith! It's an inference based on evidence! Do you know what an inference is?
What sort of fossil are you looking for? A half crocodile and half duck? No such animal existed, nor could exist. You are mashing two modern species together. Evolution says all species once shared a common ancestor. Millions of years of tiny changes between any two groups result in the massive diversity of life we see.
um, no. I know you are talking about tiny changes. We should be able to find fossils showing those tiny changes. You are under the mistaken notion that I disagree because I don't understand what you are saying. I disagree precisely because i understand what you are saying. I haven't mashed anything together. I wanna evidence of that common ancestor. You are only saying that there is evidence that points to them. I call it a stretch
Okay, Marcus, what would you accept as evidence of common ancestry? Hypothetically, of course.
He won't answer questions that make him step outside of his tiny ignorant box. He also won't answer questions which will expose him for the immoral liar that he is (RE THE QUESTION YOU DIDN"T ANSWER)
Do you have problem adding fractions together? Do you realize that adding lots of really small numbers together can result in quite large numbers? This is the way evolution build small changes with each generation into massive ones over many generations.
What do you expect a fossil to exhibit? Please explain why we see fewer variations and completely missing species as the fossil record ages? Besides all that, I am not interested in the fossil record – the DNA evidence alone is enough to convince me of evolution. Why is it many creationists are so hung up on fossils?
Because fossils were put there to test our faith :S
Oh, and by the way, could you put a URL in your comment form, just so I don't have to continuously moderate your comments and allow them through (it'll do it automatically then). Cheers.
I AM NOT SIGNED UP FOR "MASSDEBATE" or what ever it's called
Yes, you are. :p
I don't don't know there is a certain amount of Mass debatin going on
We have the evidence! Genetic evidence, fossil evidence! Why is it not good enough? You're just blurting out "It's faith" and not explaining WHY.
Well, you should read this (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowde...and this (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_dolan...
Lee Strobel is not the best apologist, unfortunately.
He's not the best but he's OK for introductory purposes. I wouldn't trust some of the stuff he does with fringe scientists (like Mike Behe or Wells who appear to be at odds with mainstream science) but a lot of the information is really good. Many of the people he interviews have also published stuff in philosophical and historical journals you can look u for further reading too.
Ahh crap – thumbed you down by mistake.
all good
He doesn't know what to believe? That's better than believing something from an ancient book that has no supporting evidence other than it is "gods word"
No you cannot say "no goat herders wrote it". I also said, prove they were who they say they were.
(Shakespeare was a real person who has been documented from various sources and has written many works so it is a very different story)
It was a two part question/challenge.
Now do it. Or stop posting.
The fact is that every surviving attribution of the plays says Shakespeare wrote it so it is reasonable to assume he did. The same with the gospels and their writers. If you want to go do an archeological dig and find copies of gospels with attributed to goatherders please do so.
No, it isn't the same damn it :@:@:@. Shakespeare is known to exist because MANY various sources have attested to his existence (and of course his plays and writings). The authority of the bible is questionable. So now, back to what I told you to do. Prove the writers of the bible are who you say they are. Or stop POSTING. Ok go.
No, it isn't the same damn it :@:@:@. Shakespeare is known to exist because MANY various sources have attested to his existence (and of course his plays and writings). The authority of the bible is questionable because there isn't other sources dictating who wrote the parts of the bible (this goes the same for Jesus btw). So now, back to what I told you to do. Prove the writers of the bible are who you say they are. Or stop POSTING. Ok go.
[The authority of the bible is questionable because there isn't other sources dictating who wrote the parts of the bible]Do you know this or are you just asserting it? Anyway there are other sources (Papias, iraneous, Justin Martyr to name a few) who affirm the authorship of the gospels.
AS I said if you want to prove the bible was written by goatherders find bunch of copies of the gospels attributed to Bill the goatherder instead of Matthew and Mark and you are in business.
[The authority of the bible is questionable because there isn't other sources dictating who wrote the parts of the bible]Do you know this or are you just asserting it? Anyway there are other sources (Papias, iraneous, Justin Martyr to name a few) who affirm the authorship of the gospels.
AS I said if you want to prove the bible was written by goatherders find bunch of copies of the gospels attributed to Bill the goatherder instead of Matthew and Mark and you are in business.
facilis is correct.
So how does that make it God given. If that is true? Aren't you taking it on faith? So you will take one thing on faith (when it is HIGHLY unlikely) but you won't accept something that has a wealth of evidence and asks inference on a few points? You really are messed up.
It is important because if things are conveyed orally information tends to be unreliable. It is called anecdote. Is this hard for you to understand Facilis? 30 Years is a long time, people forget lots of things in 30 years. Or they just make shit up.
No you cannot call them deluded. You can call an individual atheist deluded for various beliefs (not for their atheism). All christians are by definition, deluded.
There is nothing wrong with not accepting a theory. Go for it. But when you are actually wrong, ADMIT IT FFS and change you fucking beliefs! Evolution is a scientific fact. DEAL WITH IT. Do what ever it takes to deal with it, cry for months on end, weep, moan, bitch, what ever. But please deal with it. The evidence is there. Look it up. Find some scientific papers. Read them. The BIBLE is NOT a scientific paper.
So by all means. Choose not to accept theories. But make sure you actually study it first (study means looking up unbiased sources, so stay away from creationist blogs and Dis Institute). You do not understand evolution or logic. I advise you to go read some books on the basics of science and critical thought.
You accuse me of not knowing the basics of science and critical thought. Two engineering degrees say different. I want to also set the record straight. I did not say that all atheists are bad fathers or have bad fathers. Just that there seems to be a correlation. I have just as much evidence for that as you have for macro evolution.
You can't prove the Bible to be false. You have offered no evidence. You deal with that.
I quit. You are as thick as two planks. You have ignored every part of my argument. You bore me.
What argument?
Traditional Theology? So you are a pagan? You worship your ancestors. CHOOSE WHAT FRIGGIN IDEOLOGY YOU USE WHEN YOU DISCUSS GOD.
He didn't say the universe wasn't always there or that it was. Why did you reply to that as if he did. Do you know how to argue at all? You frustrate me.
Traditional Theology? So you are a pagan? You worship your ancestors? Which is it? CHOOSE WHAT FRIGGIN IDEOLOGY YOU USE WHEN YOU DISCUSS GOD.
He didn't say the universe wasn't always there or that it was. Why did you reply to that as if he did. Do you know how to argue at all? You frustrate me.
What does "traditional Theology" have to do with paganism? No one has said anything about paganism. Sorry, but you seem to be the one who can't stay on topic.
zzzzz snooore.
So your omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God is a simple being? Odd.
Where is the evidence that says the universe was not always here? Are you referring to the big bang, because that only measures the universe down to the size of the planck length – beyond that we simply do not know.
Who said God was a "simple being"? I didn't. I didn't see anyone say that. What are you saying?
Either
a. The universe has always been here eternally
b. Will never end
c. Has a beginning and an ending
Based on "heat death", which option do you think is more tenable?
I did. It is part of the westminister confession and several Catholic creeds. God being a spirit, is not made of material and thus cannot have any parts.
In this way the wiki definition 'COMPLEXITY is used to characterize something with many parts in intricate arrangement." cannot apply to him.
It's funny. I made lots of posts and now they aren't here. hmmm. I had asked who said God was a simple being? I didn't
The reason the posts were not there was because I hadn't moderated them. I didn't moderate them because I've been at the Australian Open since 10 am today.
Skelliot said something. I'm not sure if it was directed to me or not. What question are you talking about? It's pathetic that you can't see the same question can be asked for any manuscript:
How do I know that Jefferson wrote the "Declaration of Independence"?
How do I know Homer wrote the "Iliad and the Odessey"?
How do I know Plato Wrote the Republic?
How do I know Aristotle wrote all the stuff that he is getting credit for and not just stole stuff he found in Egypt?
Simple…some of it we don't. Some of it we infer. Some of it we use textual criticism to figure it out. Same with the Bible. You need to study textual criticism
We know because there is a vast amount of corroborating evidence to suggest that they did.
*dies ten times after reading this comment*
I just had a look at your post on Pangea. Seems a bit… stretching things. Very flimsy.
I mean, why doesn't the Bible say "The land masses were all one" or something like that?
By the way, I replied to your response post here: http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350
Discussion of that post should stay in the comments, no more post responses, please.
I am aware of this – so let's agree it was 30 years.
The gospel writers all waiting 30 year, 30 YEARS, before putting any of this down into the records! They saw miracles, people cured of illness, walking on water, raising the dead, Earthquakes, zombies, the resurrection – and not one of them thought it was worth writing down until 30 years later. WTF?
What do you mean he needs to study history? if he studied history he would find that there is no independent evidence of Jesus' existence altogether! Also since when is
"At least we can agree that it did not occur to the gospel writers to record any details of these amazing events until decades after they supposedly happened." Inaccurate???
He says that, and you say "30 years"…
His POINT was that why didn't someone write about it AS SOON AS THESE AMAZING EVENTS OCCURED!?!?!???!?? They WAITED 30 years to even bring it up….GENIUSSS!!!!
3 decades = 30 years
You seem to know a lot about zombies for a Christian…
Holy crap! You mean to say people die and there was an empty tomb! Wow – it MUST mean Jesus was God almighty in human form as his own son, sent to lift the curse he himself put upon us when a woman ate from a magical tree IF we believe the story that is.
Lee Strobel again? Do we really have to go there?
1)Communication is this age was primarily oral. Not many people could write. Most of the information was passed along orally back then, unless people wanted to reach someone far away or reach a wide audience.
2)How is this important?
If we accept the gospel writers could actually wite (and so wrote the gospels), then your first point regarding the number of people able to write seems moot.
Are you saying that the gospel writers did not consider the story of Jesus important enough to reach far away or a wide audience until 30 years after the event?
2) Really? Seriously? You don't find it at all odd that they waited 30 years before puttin pen to paper? I wonder what the average life span was back then? I bet it was close to 30-40 years. If this is the case, they waited well into old age before bothering. Very odd indeed.
1)My point was it was not the principal method of communication back then. Oral tradition and memorisation was sufficient to spread it.
2)[You don't find it at all odd that they waited 30 years before puttin pen to paper?]
Yes , as I said, paper was not the main method of communication back then.
As for life expectancy in roman times you can check here
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Li...
Average life expectancy tends to increase with age.
Wow – this is ground breaking stuff! Who would have thought that as the age of people went up, so did their life expectancy. Wow – the longer you live, the longer you are expected to live. Incredible stuff!
[Wow - this is ground breaking stuff! ]
Nah, its not groundbreaking , you are just ignorant of population demographics .
(Heck the fact that life expectancy increases with age is true even in modern America http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/07.20/10...
[Who would have thought that as the age of people went up, so did their life expectancy.]
All the social scientists and people who study this. did you even look at the table from the last post?(or are you just too angry that you were proven wrong?)
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Li...
I think he is angry.
Hmm, Christians are unable to process irony and sarcasm it seems :O
"[Wow - this is ground breaking stuff! ]
Nah, its not groundbreaking , you are just ignorant of population demographics ."
It's your right to censor anything you want on your blog. What happened to free speech
It says some administrator deleted one of my comments 4 comments above this one.
Okay, so it does seem to show a message like that when a comment is deleted, so I must have deleted it accidentally. Sorry, but I didn't know I'd done it.