Friday, November 14, 2008

Questions biblical creationists can't answer without making me laugh


Basic questions (no education required):


1. What makes your story of creationism fundamentally different from all the others that exist now, have existed before, and will exist in the future?

2. How did Noah find all of the animals and get them back to the ark? Did he bring them back one pair at a time, or did they all follow him in a line as he visited other continents to collect more animals?

3. What did the carnivores eat on the ark?

4. How did koalas get to Australia after the ark washed up on that mountain?

5. Why did your god make life that has to destroy other life, often cruelly, in order to survive?

6. If cruelty and suffering result from a 'fallen world' caused by some original sin of humans, why did your god also punish the animals for it by creating disease, pain and suffering for them too?

7. Is it just to punish all humans, including those who weren't born yet, for the sins of one? Would you punish your own younger children for the wrongs of the oldest which occurred before the others were born?

8. If humans are special creations, why do we share the traits of violence, lust, rage, tribal warfare, homosexuality, etc. with animals?

9. Why do you believe your god made only one breeding pair (Adam and Eve), instead of many? With only one breeding pair, fathers are forced to have sex with daughters, brothers with sisters, and sons with mothers, in order to propagate the species. Is this a divine endorsement for incest?

10. If all civilisations resulted from Adam and Eve, and oral traditions about the god that created them were passed down from generation to generation, why are there so many other creation stories in the world? Why didn't all civilisations keep their 'true' religion?

11. Why did your god only appear to one group of people? If it can do anything and be everywhere at once, why couldn't it be fucked to appear to the other people of the world as well?

12. Why do you get your scientific education from people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron? These people have no university-level education in science, and in some cases, no university education at all. Wouldn't it be smarter to trust those who are educated, and actively researching, in the field?

13. Why has the world, including government funding, science journals, reputable newspapers, education standards, etc., moved on without you, leaving your barbaric bronze-age theories in their dust? Why have we made so much progress in our understanding after abandoning religious methodology for a scientific one?


Intermediate questions:

14. Why is there at least some evidence for our scientific theories, but none at all for your creationism?

15. Why is the fossil record arranged in such a way as to suggest evolution?

16. Why are the continents shaped like they were once together, and have similar geology on what would be the common edges?

17. Why are the continents moving apart at a rate that would put them together millions of years ago?

18. If humans are special creations, why do we share the same biology, metabolic pathways, etc. with chimpanzees? Shouldn't we have been made completely differently to emphasize the point?

19. To avoid the cruelty caused by life killing other life to survive, couldn't we all have been photosynthetic organisms, using sunlight and inanimate molecules to make our energy? If you're going to say there's not enough energy in photosynthesis, why couldn't your god design a more effective photosynthetic system?

20. Why does the evidence from so many scientific disciplines, astronomy, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, all converge to suggest the Big Bang and Evolution, while at the same time pointing away from your theory?

21. Why do the mathematical models behind scientific understanding of the Universe work so well, while creationists have no mathematical models at all?

22. Does your creation model or your holy book account for things like quantum mechanics? Why doesn't it seem to contain much useful knowledge at all?

23. If your god didn't explain quantum nature for these people because they wouldn't understand, then isn't it time your god shows itself and gives us an update now that we have more understanding? Why doesn't it divinely guide some people to write an update to your current holy book? Or is it allowing us to do that through science? Is the reason we don't need an update that science is doing such a good job of answering the questions?


Advanced Questions:

24. Why does the human chromosome #2 appear to have been created by the fusion of two different chimpanzee chromosomes, complete with structures which would not be necessary if it was created as a single, unified chromosome?

25. What is the Cosmic Background Radiation? The CBR is an integral part of the Big Bang model, and is in fact demanded by it. How does your creationism account for it, ie. where does it fit in your model?

26. Why are the galaxies moving apart? Were they once much closer together?

27. Why can we see objects in space that are billions of light years away?

28. What process did your god use to create life? Can you describe how it works?

29. Can you use your creation model to make any helpful predictions that might lead us to further discoveries or understanding?

30. What is one prediction that your model can make which could support your creationism to the exclusion of accepted scientific models, and what evidence can you find for it?

354 comments:

1 – 200 of 354   Newer›   Newest»
FV said...

You mentioned this blog is fair and balanced. I think this is not the case as creationists cannot be expected to answer not even one of these questions. In pursue of justice, I am herewith submitting some responses on they behalf.

1. If Charlton Heston movies weren’t enough, Christian creationism is the only story that is routinely made into animated films (please take into account that hieroglyphs and Aztec codices do not count as animation). Extended broadcasting of creationism totally confirm its claims. Moreover, thanks to Saint Disney, every story in the Book of Books will soon be validated by its own E-rated cgi blockbuster and thousands more will be converted. Other explanations for Genesis does not seeem to have this power.

2. Since we all came from Adam and Eve, then Noah MUST have been Steve Irwin’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather, you see? No wonder God wanted him to be the Ark master. It is rumoured that Noah was about to get the dinosaurs too but then it started raining, crickey!

3. Although not mentioned in the Bible, Noah had abundantly stock-piled on God-Chow and SPAM. Thus, all the carnivores rejoiceth.

4. Thanks to the Holy Spirit awesome powers, koalas grew temporary angel-wings (this was a miracle, not a freak mutation). Given Earth’s flatness all they needed then was the right Cartesian coordinates.

5. Mr. YHVE is an angry God. He works in mysterious ways. If you do not believe this, you will burn in hell (YWBH)

6. YWBH

7. Please refer to (6)

8. Just to quote one of the creationist modern prophets: “mankind and fish can coexist, peacefully”. What makes you think that the other species, such as mexicans and the iraq, will not get along once christians show them the light of Sweet Jesus Lord?

9. [This was a low and despicable attack to creationists. Please leave their families out of this. Otherwise, they'll complain with YHVE and YWBH]

10. As per documental evidence found in The Holy Scripture, creationists hold the only true religion; everybody else got corrupted by the Evil one. That’s also why other "people" have dark skin and speak dialects such as mexican or the Iraq, and such as.

11. He is everywhere, even right here, right now!!! You can feel Him in every key of the keyboard, in every pixel generated by Windows Vista on this 16” LCD computer screen made by Samsung. He who has ears shall listen, he who was eyes shall see. Sinners and atheist are scientifically proven to have a hard ear and are blind as bats. If that does not suffice, Mr. YHVE also acts in mysterious ways.

12. Creationist distrust scientists because even they bow before the All Mighty. Take Galileo… he flip-flopped Kerry-style when he was shown the Truth by a team of inquisitors. Way to go science!!! Ergo, it is repentance or YHVE, I mean YWBH.

13. You see, morality changes gradually over time as a result of being exposed to different scenarios. This causes some moral values to prevail, while others are discontinued, thus confusing mankind with heretical ideas that do adapt to the christian belief system. This is bringing upon us Judgment Day ahead of schedule.

At this rate of moral "revolution", Armageddon will come any minute. Just hold… here it comes… almost here… hold it…

Admin said...

FV, you made me laugh, just like the post's title promised I would. :-) I especially liked #10 and #12. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Number 11?

11. Why did your god only appear to one group of people? If it can do anything and be everywhere at once, why couldn't it be fucked to appear to the other people of the world as well?

yummypinkblobs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
yummypinkblobs said...

Maybe I glossed over it, but I didn't see you mention to ask where over 99% of all the animal species that ever lived on Earth went in those 6,000 years.

Is it not true that one of each animal was preserved on the ark?

Why were dinosaurs and other ice age mammals never mentioned in genesis?

And how did 99% of all the ancient aquatic animals drown in the flood? They're water dwelling animals!

I love to use that one!

Shawna said...

FV.. I almost got mad, but then I realized that entire comment was just satire.
You are awesome.

Brad said...

1.Why is there not unanimous acceptance by all christian faiths for new prophecies, scriptures and biblical texts?

2.If Christianity is the one fits all religion, why are there so many differing opinions (with-in the faiths) to the true meanings of the scriptures?

3. If its necessary for the word of god to be heard by all humans, to bring about the End Times, then how would you teach it to a non-communicative person with speech, hearing and learning disabilities. i.e an autistic person?

4. The answer to this question is obvious, it's a logic puzzle, but if humans did not evolve reasoning or the communications skills to express ideas, would your god actually exist?

Anonymous said...

Very funny. It always did bother me in sunday school that we never talked about how Noah picked up animals on the other side of the world, or the species that have been hidden or thought exinct until recently.

shpadoinkle12 said...

A few years ago, I asked a coworker where she thought dinosaurs came from. Her response, I shit you not, was, "God used the earth like a giant sandbox and buried stuff in it so we could have fun digging them up." This was a dead-serious answer, coming from a 40-something year old woman who I had a lot of respect for.

*facepalm*

misael said...

And also how did Noah transport the termites and the beavers?

Ryan said...

I would just like to point out something first.

You start off with "Basic questions (no education required)".
-well peer down to #10. Civilisations. Did your 21st century scientifically advanced computer not even pick up on that error? Or does "no education required" really stand true here?

Also on #11, "why couldn't it be fucked to appear to the other people".
Learn how to spell and learn how to write (and yes genius those ARE two different things) before you decide to start a one-sided argument with yourself. If you're going to try to make a good point, it helps if you yourself have a little education under your belt.

#12. Is this a slight against people who are only over 50 and have lived in front of a T.V. since it was invented? Go to any college campus or hell, any place that isn't secluded from the rest of society by 100 miles and ask that question. Seriously, get with the times. Your research on only 3 people who believe in Christianity and attempt to spread the word of it has again shown that "no education [is] required".

Number Thirteen. And yes I spelled that one out on purpose. "Barbaric bronze-aged theories", huh? That's a bold phrase coming from someone who can't spell or seem to bother his or herself with immersing yourself in the real world. If you hadn't noticed through your "in-depth research" that when the dawning of civilization was a new and creative idea, what was considered the heavens was what people could see in the sky. Literally, simple astronomy. Wow, what a crazy concept right?
So, riddle me this. How did we go from simple astronomy as a religion to Judaism, or to Hinduism, or Buddhism? Hmm... Have fun with that research. It may take a while for that one to sink into your 5th grade educated atheist brain.
(Oh, and just bee tee double-u, I'm certainly no creationist either. In fact I was raised Mormon, of all Christian subsidiaries, and stopped attending roughly 15 years ago).

18. What point? That we are not chimpanzees? Yea, that's why we walk upright.

#26. Again, your research has only been undertaken enough to attempt to prove your point. When in fact, not all galaxies are moving apart from each other. Because of these strange things called Dark Matter and Dark Energy, yes, some galaxies are moving further apart from one another. However, our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are actually going to collide in the next whatever billion or million years it is.

It's been fun. But, like you and I both said, "no education required".

Admin said...

Well Ryan, you've gone and embarrassed yourself.

"Civilisations. Did your 21st century scientifically advanced computer not even pick up on that error?"

Do you know what British spelling is? You know, the spelling that the entire world, except for the Yanks, uses to write the English language? You're an ignorant American. No education required. And yes, my browser does underline 'civilisations', but I ignore it because the spelling is correct.

"Also on #11, "why couldn't it be fucked to appear to the other people".
Learn how to spell and learn how to write"

This is not a mistake. You're interpreting it incorrectly. Replace 'fucked' with 'bothered', and you might understand what I meant. It was a form of slang, but entirely what I meant to write. "I couldn't be fucked to go _______ today."

"Barbaric bronze-aged theories", huh? That's a bold phrase coming from someone who can't spell...."

I think we already established that you've embarrassed yourself on that one.

"18. What point? That we are not chimpanzees? Yea, that's why we walk upright."

Walking upright is not a fundamental biological difference. Sorry.

"Again, your research has only been undertaken enough to attempt to prove your point. When in fact, not all galaxies are moving apart from each other. Because of these strange things called Dark Matter and Dark Energy, yes, some galaxies are moving further apart from one another. However, our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are actually going to collide in the next whatever billion or million years it is."

Uh-huh...... well, good thing I have a degree in physics and astronomy, right? The galaxies are moving apart except for those which are so strongly bound to each other that they overwhelm the expansion. We're part of a group of galaxies. You think I wasn't aware that we're on a collision course with some? Please! That is not a refutation of the Big Bang, nor is it even relevant to the post. You're nitpicking.

Admin said...

One more thing for Ryan:

"Did your 21st century scientifically advanced computer not even pick up on that error? Or does "no education required" really stand true here?"

So are you NOT using a 21st-century scientifically advanced computer to read my website? Because it really sounds like you're mocking them. I guess you're just one of those shitheads who rags on science and scientists while taking full advantage of the benefits they provide for you.

It's a bad idea to base most of your argument against somebody on a single spelling mistake in a rather long post, especially when the mistake isn't an actual mistake and you yourself are the one who is mistaken.

You've already embarrassed yourself thoroughly, so go fuck yourself.

Admin said...

And still more for Ryan. Dude, my girlfriend is an American and she just said that it's Americans like you, who don't know that the rest of the English-speaking world writes some words differently, that make all of you look ignorant about the world. So congratulations, you dumb fuck!

Feki said...

Ryan, before you start with more of your "clever" ad hominen attacks, I must tell you two things:

1) English is not my first language nor the only language that I speak. If language correctness is such an important issue for you so as to make you dismiss other people's ideas then you should never attempt to leave your country, not even your trailer park.
2) Trying to bring grammar/spelling mistakes down to the same level of ignorance as religious delusion simply does not work: I have bad grammar but I can tell apart fairy tales from reality. Can you? Does your perfect grammar compensate for the fact that you believe in talking snakes and zombie jews?

So, really, what's your point aside from "spell-checking" the entire post? that the Mormon faith is better than the "barbaric-bronze age beliefs" on the basis that it is "newer"? does the fact that Joseph Smith made it up in the late 1800s makes it superior to the old biblical crap?

Well, either creationist or "enlightened creationist" (as you might think of yourself), you sure seem to enjoy the use of a computer, so adding to Admin's comment: mocking and questioning scientific knowledge while browsing internet blogs is not only hypocritical, it's dumb.

I should also remind you that scientific knowledge is not some "truth written on stone", but that is the whole point. Science improves itself through new discoveries and peer review. In comparisson, for some 2000 years there has been no "new discoveries" of walking-dead/walk-on-water jewish carpenters and peer review of the facts tells us that none ever existed.

So, if you disagree with science and believe in fairy tales so much please do not ever go to the hospital but try praying, sacrificing animals and applying fresh dung to your afflicted body part. That'll probably do the trick, right?

As for us atheists, you won't have to withstand us much longer. "The Rapture" should happen any minute now, I am sure.

:D

MikeT said...

@Feki: I agree with your general tone in criticizing Ryan, but one of your paragraphs had 2 errors:

1> ...what's your point... the Mormon faith

From Ryan's comment I saw that he does not adhere to that faith, he states he has not been participating for 15 years. His point on that seemed to me to be that the original post lumps all Creationists into one very narrow belief system. Except, of course, where he addresses different faiths based on the Bible.

2> ...Joseph Smith made it up in the late 1800s...

History tells us that Joseph Smith died in 1844. The Mormon church was founded in 1830. Neither date qualifies for "late 1800s".

When you mock someone for being ignorant you should pay attention to what they said (otherwise they will not feel the sting) and your facts should be correct (otherwise they will dismiss you as ignorant).

soulcraft said...

Ryan, how biblical are Joseph Smith's hat and his magic scrying stones? Does the Book of Mormon explain them?

Feki said...

MikeT, one rarely receives constructive criticism like this, so I sincerely thank you. Rest assure it will not fall on deaf ears.

(also thanks for not dismissing my entire comment 'cause of two mistakes made in haste)

Anonymous said...

You criticize others about being ignorant and look down upon them because they don’t have a degree in astronomy and physics. You probably think that Christians are to blame for half the world’s problems. I don’t have a problem with atheist- it’s important to be accepting of other’s beliefs. But people like you stain the word. You come off as such a jerk, and I really hope one day you learn that even though you believe in the evolution theory, you more ignorant that most creationist. Stop hating other people for being different from you. Where is it getting you anyway?

Admin said...

1. I don't look down on them because they don't have a degree in physics and astronomy, I look down on them because they don't listen to those who do. Why not give your physician medical advice?

2. Not just Christians are to blame for the world's problems, many superstitious beliefs combine to cause most of the world's problems.

3. "You come off as such a jerk..."

Yes, people often don't like to be told they're fools. That makes me sound like a jerk.

4. "I really even though you believe in the evolution theory, you more ignorant that most creationist."

Yet ANOTHER ANONYMOUS poster claiming that I'm ignorant, but failing to tell me what it is that I'm ignorant about. Could it be that you don't actually have any facts to present?

5. "Stop hating other people for being different from you. Where is it getting you anyway?"

It's getting me a blog. And I hate the insane belief, not the people.

RK said...

These questions don't intimidate any Christian that studies.

1. Not sure how to answer this one. I go by what the Bible says. Can't speak for everyone else.

2. Noah didn't have to find anything according to scripture. The animals found Noah.

3. According to scripture, there were no carnivores. Everything, including humans were basically vegan.

4. Not sure how to answer this either. How did they get there in any theory? Land brige most probably. Look up how animals got to Krakatoa after the 1883 eruption wiped it clean.

5. After the flood, things changed. People and animals became carnivores. If you consider it cruelty, then fine.

6. Everything has to die, or they live forever and the world would be overran with life. It's not that complicated. There is no "easy" way to die. There is a specific need for disease and "pain".

7. This is human logic. Not sure what would satisfy you here.

8. What? How do you know if an animal is lusting after another animal? How do you know it's being "violent" and not following simple instinct?

9. Simply put, I don't. And a careful reading of Genesis doesn't support that. At least, not until after the flood. And Incest is aborred only by human logic. Just because society hates something, doesn't automatically make it wrong. There would be no such thing as race without incest. If there was another catostopic event leaving only you and your sister, you better be willing to bang her brains out or you will kill all human kind.

10. All civilizations resulted from Noah, not Adam and Eve. Everyone has their own version of everything. Even the gospels. Oddly enough, every civilization mentions a world wide flood. Funny, that seems to add credibility to the story.

11. God's plan is complete. No need to come to anyone in the form of anything. There is a very long answer for this, but in short... there's nothing God can do to convince you God is real if you made your mind up. If that's what you're getting at.

12.I like Kent Hovind. I also know three people with Master Degrees who frequently come to me for help.. I have NO degree. A degree doesn't automatically make you better equiped to deal with issues. I conceed that it helps.

13. This is plainly predicted in the Bible. It's not really a suprise to any well-read Christian.

Anonymous said...

These questions don't intimidate any Christian that studies.

1. Not sure how to answer this one. I go by what the Bible says. Can't speak for everyone else.

2. Noah didn't have to find anything according to scripture. The animals found Noah.

3. According to scripture, there were no carnivores. Everything, including humans were basically vegan.

4. Not sure how to answer this either. How did they get there in any theory? Land brige most probably. Look up how animals got to Krakatoa after the 1883 eruption wiped it clean.

5. After the flood, things changed. People and animals became carnivores. If you consider it cruelty, then fine.

6. Everything has to die, or they live forever and the world would be overran with life. It's not that complicated. There is no "easy" way to die. There is a specific need for disease and "pain".

7. This is human logic. Not sure what would satisfy you here.

8. What? How do you know if an animal is lusting after another animal? How do you know it's being "violent" and not following simple instinct?

9. Simply put, I don't. And a careful reading of Genesis doesn't support that. At least, not until after the flood. And Incest is aborred only by human logic. Just because society hates something, doesn't automatically make it wrong. There would be no such thing as race without incest. If there was another catostopic event leaving only you and your sister, you better be willing to bang her brains out or you will kill all human kind.

10. All civilizations resulted from Noah, not Adam and Eve. Everyone has their own version of everything. Even the gospels. Oddly enough, every civilization mentions a world wide flood. Funny, that seems to add credibility to the story.

11. God's plan is complete. No need to come to anyone in the form of anything. There is a very long answer for this, but in short... there's nothing God can do to convince you God is real if you made your mind up. If that's what you're getting at.

12.I like Kent Hovind. I also know three people with Master Degrees who frequently come to me for help.. I have NO degree. A degree doesn't automatically make you better equiped to deal with issues. I conceed that it helps.

13. This is plainly predicted in the Bible. It's not really a suprise to any well-read Christian.

Anonymous said...

These questions don't intimidate any Christian that studies.

1. Not sure how to answer this one. I go by what the Bible says. Can't speak for everyone else.

2. Noah didn't have to find anything according to scripture. The animals found Noah.

3. According to scripture, there were no carnivores. Everything, including humans were basically vegan.

4. Not sure how to answer this either. How did they get there in any theory? Land brige most probably. Look up how animals got to Krakatoa after the 1883 eruption wiped it clean.

5. After the flood, things changed. People and animals became carnivores. If you consider it cruelty, then fine.

6. Everything has to die, or they live forever and the world would be overran with life. It's not that complicated. There is no "easy" way to die. There is a specific need for disease and "pain".

7. This is human logic. Not sure what would satisfy you here.

8. What? How do you know if an animal is lusting after another animal? How do you know it's being "violent" and not following simple instinct?

9. Simply put, I don't. And a careful reading of Genesis doesn't support that. At least, not until after the flood. And Incest is aborred only by human logic. Just because society hates something, doesn't automatically make it wrong. There would be no such thing as race without incest. If there was another catostopic event leaving only you and your sister, you better be willing to bang her brains out or you will kill all human kind.

10. All civilizations resulted from Noah, not Adam and Eve. Everyone has their own version of everything. Even the gospels. Oddly enough, every civilization mentions a world wide flood. Funny, that seems to add credibility to the story.

11. God's plan is complete. No need to come to anyone in the form of anything. There is a very long answer for this, but in short... there's nothing God can do to convince you God is real if you made your mind up. If that's what you're getting at.

12.I like Kent Hovind. I also know three people with Master Degrees who frequently come to me for help.. I have NO degree. A degree doesn't automatically make you better equiped to deal with issues. I conceed that it helps.

13. This is plainly predicted in the Bible. It's not really a suprise to any well-read Christian.

Admin said...

We had a taker, but it seems the site either isn't posting his comment, or he deleted it. So I'll helpfully post it for him myself. He answered the "No Education" questions. He didn't touch any of the others, strangely. His name was RK, and here is his comment in full:

These questions don't intimidate any Christian that studies.

1. Not sure how to answer this one. I go by what the Bible says. Can't speak for everyone else.

2. Noah didn't have to find anything according to scripture. The animals found Noah.

3. According to scripture, there were no carnivores. Everything, including humans were basically vegan.

4. Not sure how to answer this either. How did they get there in any theory? Land brige most probably. Look up how animals got to Krakatoa after the 1883 eruption wiped it clean.

5. After the flood, things changed. People and animals became carnivores. If you consider it cruelty, then fine.

6. Everything has to die, or they live forever and the world would be overran with life. It's not that complicated. There is no "easy" way to die. There is a specific need for disease and "pain".

7. This is human logic. Not sure what would satisfy you here.

8. What? How do you know if an animal is lusting after another animal? How do you know it's being "violent" and not following simple instinct?

9. Simply put, I don't. And a careful reading of Genesis doesn't support that. At least, not until after the flood. And Incest is aborred only by human logic. Just because society hates something, doesn't automatically make it wrong. There would be no such thing as race without incest. If there was another catostopic event leaving only you and your sister, you better be willing to bang her brains out or you will kill all human kind.

10. All civilizations resulted from Noah, not Adam and Eve. Everyone has their own version of everything. Even the gospels. Oddly enough, every civilization mentions a world wide flood. Funny, that seems to add credibility to the story.

11. God's plan is complete. No need to come to anyone in the form of anything. There is a very long answer for this, but in short... there's nothing God can do to convince you God is real if you made your mind up. If that's what you're getting at.

12.I like Kent Hovind. I also know three people with Master Degrees who frequently come to me for help.. I have NO degree. A degree doesn't automatically make you better equiped to deal with issues. I conceed that it helps.

13. This is plainly predicted in the Bible. It's not really a suprise to any well-read Christian.

Admin said...

RK, the challenge was not to answer the questions. I'm well aware that your kind can answer them. I'm merely saying that your answers will be ridiculous, which they are.

1. So you can't say why your story is true and the others are myths. Good stuff, exactly what I was looking for.

2. Not what I was looking for and not an answer. Fine, how did the animals find Noah? How long did it take the sloth to get to the ark?

3. And yet the evidence suggests differently, doesn't it? Oh, but I forgot, your book says it isn't true.

4. How did they get there in ANY theory? Like in scientific theory? Perhaps because Australia separated from the mega-continent and they evolved there? A land bridge? and yet there are no koala populations or fossils between the Middle-East and Australia? How does that work?

5. People are not carnivores. We're omnivores. Do you have any evidence that there was once a time when people and animals didn't eat meat? I guess the tiger's claws were for scratching the backs of other tigers? And yes, it's cruel. Is your god cruel?

6. No, we do not all have to die. An omnipotent god could easily create the conditions in which it is not necessary, or in which it does not need to be so painful. Wasn't that the original plan, according to the fairy tale? But you did not answer the question, did you? Why punish animals for the wrongs of humans?

7. Again, you didn't answer the question, did you? Is it just? for a guy who claims the questions aren't intimidating, you sure do dodge a lot of them. Again, is it just? Yes or no?

8. Animals don't lust? Seriously? You know that they fuck, right? And yes, they're violent. They engage in tribal warfare. I'm sure it is "instinct", but that doesn't answer the question, does it? Why do we share that?

9. Explain why race requires incest. So incest is OK is what you're saying, correct? Just want to make sure.

10. Support the statement that all civilisations believe in a world-wide flood.

11. Again, not an answer, is it? There's nothing a god can do to convince me? Are you serious? We're talking about an omnipotent god, right? How did people convince me that air exists? This is the worst answer in your entire comment.

12. You like Kent Hovind because you're a fucking idiot like he is. Just wondering if you read his "thesis". What do these people have Masters degrees in, and what do they come to you for help with? Not science, I'm sure.

13. Again, not an answer.


Dude, you suck and you're a fucking fool.

Anonymous said...

Haha! I love how RK used "according to scripture" in sentences. It makes me laugh at how creationists wave around the bible like it's scientific proof that there is an invisible man living in the clouds.

Anonymous said...

Anon

Evolution is not a fuckin theory!!!
its scientific fact.
Natural selection is a theory that stems from Evolution.

I hate it when people say shit like that.

Anonymous said...

Actually, evolution IS just a theory. Just like gravitation, germ theory, and how we believe light works. In science, however, being a theory does not make it non-factual. A scientific theory means 2 things:
1. There was a hypothesis to begin with, which lead to research, which lead to evidence supporting the claim, making a theory
2. It is not concrete, as it is science. Even if mankind NEVER learns any more about astrophysics, there is more to be learned. If there is more (or even if not, but we assume there could be as it is science) the theory is able to be reworked bit by bit to add in more, or to correct what we got wrong.

however, i must agree with you, i hate when people do that shit too.

Anonymous said...

Just for shits and giggles, i decided to play devils advocate. I am exceedignly anti-theistic (meaning i absolutely abhor religion, not that i am an atheist), but i think ill se how i can answer some of these questions with what creationist "logic" i know.

1. My god can beat up your god! (or, at least, my military forces fighting in the name of magical invisible people throughout histoy can beat your military forces fighting for your magical invisible sky-man).
2. Well, as we all know, ancient people (like 6000 years ago) had MAGIC. I mean, duh, he just cast teleport spells and straight up caught those suckers and brought em back!
3. This one actually CAN make sense...lets say all of the female animals Noah got were about to give birth, so there were 2 of each animal on the arc, but within a few weeks there were more of each, so the lions and bears and crocodiles could eat the delicious newborns!
4. God's magic again. Isn't he nifty?
5. Because God can be cruel. Smiting and sacrifices and whatnot, but he is still all-loving and all-just!
6. It says in the Bible that god made plants and animals for man, so as long as WE are being hurt by it, who cares? Animals are just meat with legs!
7. I can't think of anything witty. Sorry
8. Well, ya gotta start SOMEWHERE. Chevys and Mitsubishis are totally different cars, but they still need the basics to work. Same with life, you start with the basics like central nervous systems and mitochondrial DNA and build from there.
9. Umm...yes?
10. Ever played Telephone? (do you guys play that outside of the States? I am afraid I'm most ignorant on the practices of childhood games from around the world). It is pretty easy to see how the Mexica would get a giant flying thunder-snake-bird from the biblical stories over a few thousand years.
11. Because the Hebrews were his chosen. Everyone knows that! Despite the fact that all humans spread from the same genetic background, living in Israel made those ancient desert-nomads the best, in gods eyes.
12. This one I have to say is actually unfair. While Kirk Cameron and Bananna Man aren't well-versed or educated in anything of this sort, there ARE people like Behe (I hate him) who are well-educated in science that creationists take their ideas from. However, being educated in science does not make your theories viable or even not-completely-fuckin-retarded.
13. SAAAAATAAAAAAN! Satan did it.
14. There is evidence for creationism. Like the bible! And oral histories.
15. Like someone said, so we could have fun trying to figure it out. And, ofcourse, to test our faith in Him.
16. God is a prankster, he does things like this and make dinosaur fossils and the human genome to be almost identical to that of apes just to test us. Make sure we are paying attention and giving him the correct amount of love.
17. See above
18. Chimpanzee's were probably God's "alpha" phase. You know, see what bugs might need to be removed. He probably moved on to beta testing with Adam and Eve.
19. God isn't a hippy. Sure, he's all-loving, but that doesnt mean he doesn't like a good steak!

ok, im tired of these. guess i am done now.

Anonymous said...

Evolution isn't "just a theory" - it's a scientific theory. There is pretty much no better definition of *undeniable fact*.

People misuse the word "theory" in common usage when they mean hypothesis or (usually) conjecture. That's not science's fault nor its problem. The best thing you can do is interrupt someone the next time they tell you they have a theory, and politely let them know that they do not, in fact, have a theory. They have an idea and I believe ideas are wonderful things that can't need to be dressed up with improper words.

Of course, we can't stop that. It's the same reason "tragedy" and "irony" are so abused in common language that they don't actually mean *anything* anymore.

Justin said...

Why does it matter? It seems to me that being condescending to people of other beliefs than your own is not any sort of way to "enlighten" people. Do you like when creationists would try to discredit atheists? So why do it to them? People will continue to believe what they want to believe in even though it's wrong. By attempting to persuade people by telling them their belief is wrong is just swaying them to your belief. Yes, atheism is a belief. Keep yours to you, I keep mine to me, and all those bible thumpers keep theirs to theirs. Sound good?

Admin said...

"Do you like when creationists would try to discredit atheists?"

I enjoy watching them make asses of themselves, yes.

"Yes, atheism is a belief. Keep yours to you, I keep mine to me, and all those bible thumpers keep theirs to theirs. Sound good?"

No, no it doesn't. I'll express my opinion as much as I want, and if you don't like it, there's the door.

Admin said...

And another thing for Justin. It matters because biblical creationism is wrong, and that's a fact. We know it's wrong because all of the predictions it would make are contradicted by the evidence. So I'm stating facts, not opinions. And if you see a problem with stating facts, or wonder why facts matter, then get the fuck out of here.

Anonymous said...

At RK post.

There are so many animals that couldn't survive if they didn't eat meat. Does anyone have a pet cat? because they would have died if they couldn't eat meat. A Dog might survive on turnip greens or what have you, but a Cat as well as many other carnivores would no longer exist if that were the case.

Laura said...

Justin wrote: "It seems to me that being condescending to people of other beliefs than your own is not any sort of way to "enlighten" people. "

That's the problem Justin, creationism is a BELIEF, evolution is a FACT. People who are reasonable and trust in facts have every right to be condescending to people who choose to believe in something which is not supported by any fact at all (no Justin, a book does NOT count as fact!)(no, really not, not even when it's said it's written by a god)

Anonymous said...

Don't you think it is not worth having this discussion with people who are brainwashed? Most religious people are not educated enough. I found that it is a waste of time arguing with them. Actually I don't give a shit what they believe...

Justin said...

I enjoy watching them make asses of themselves, yes.

Good, but you realize it all depends on the frame of reference who the ass is.

"No, no it doesn't. I'll express my opinion as much as I want, and if you don't like it, there's the door."

Why not have a discussion then? Or would you rather just exclude other by imagining your superiority?

"And another thing for Justin. It matters because biblical creationism is wrong, and that's a fact. We know it's wrong because all of the predictions it would make are contradicted by the evidence. So I'm stating facts, not opinions. And if you see a problem with stating facts, or wonder why facts matter, then get the fuck out of here."

Predictions state that the Geiger-Marsden experiment would have resulted in small angle deflections. Atoms in the Stern-Gerlach experiment would have no intrinsic spins. Columbus would have fallen off the plane. Science is full of mistakes, and I would expect a fellow physicist to be a little more skeptical of any one theory being presented by fact. Did the school you go to actually forget to teach you how to break conservation laws? What about that predictions fail to account for Heisenberg Uncertainty? So it seems plain to me that all the above mentioned physicists are much smarter than either you or I, and what did they do to the contemporary "facts?" Religion was long considered fact and living by facts did wonders for the world, no?

I don't intend to come off as hostile in any way, just trying to help you put forth something other than rhetoric and inspire some real conversation.

Laura, I appreciate your willingness to follow facts and rules and laws, its good for a society. If everyone suddenly agrees with you, who will you belittle then? How about the "scientific fact" that blacks are less able to have higher reasoning than whites? One of the scientists who pioneered the "fact" of DNA put forth that theory. Facts are accepted beliefs, and beliefs are accepted facts.

'Don't you think it is not worth having this discussion with people who are brainwashed? Most religious people are not educated enough. I found that it is a waste of time arguing with them. Actually I don't give a shit what they believe...'

Funny thing about education is nobody is educated enough, which if you think about it is a pretty daunting thing. No matter how much you know about a subject, someone will some day know more. Hopefully at least. Shouldn't you, as a presumably educated person, be willing to not look to creed as a judge of a person's intelligence?

Stay frosty people :-)

Admin said...

Justin, you want to converse with people who have already stated in advance that evidence and reason will not sway them? Take a look at the statement on the Answers in Genesis page. It says that any evidence which contradicts creationism is the work of Satan, or some such garbage. Good luck! I'm just here to make fun of them.

We KNOW biblical creationism is wrong. The fossils are in completely the wrong order, the ages determined by all fields of science differ drastically from the creationist predictions, the ark story is ridiculous and left no evidence, the genetic evidence is overwhelming, etc. Only a god who is deliberately trying to deceive us could allow for biblical creationism to be real. And if we're going to assume that everything we know is a deception, we're into solipsism, and I'd rather kill myself.

As for the physics stuff, not really my thing. My degree leaned a lot more towards astronomy and aerospace engineering, orbits, stuff like that. My pure physics education ends with an intro course in modern physics at the third-year level.

Admin said...

The evidence clearly excludes biblical creationism. If you don't want to stand behind that, I think you're being pretty wishy-washy and accommodating to beliefs that do not deserve any serious consideration.

Anonymous said...

Although I did find these questions to be humorous, I think some of these comments are becoming unnecessarily harsh and unfair. We're all entitled to our own opinion, of course, but when we're childishly name-calling, unnecessarily insulting, and outright telling christians they're wrong because we (atheists) believe we know the REAL truth... well, that's going too far. It's perfectly alright to express what you believe in, but it is cruel to insult the thousands of people who take the bible with a hint of salt, and use it as a guideline for living a "good life." I'm an atheist, and have asked some of these same questions, myself, but not to "make christians look like asses." Asking questions should be about learning from others, and if you've already got your mind made up that you're going to disregard whatever response you get, you're going to get (and deserve) the infamous "ignorant" label some day. This goes for everyone, not just the admin here.

Admin said...

This post is directed at biblical creationists, not the 'moderate' Christians who somehow manage to believe the book even though they believe so much of it is false. Creationists are ignorant fools, and I have no problem calling them that. If the moderates feel insulted, they should try to figure out why they feel the post applies to them, because it doesn't.

My mind can be swayed be evidence. The creationist minds most often cannot, and they've stated that quite proudly.

Again, if you don't like the tone, you don't ever have to visit my site again.

Admin said...

Justin, I just took another look at your comment, and have to object to this:

"Columbus would have fallen off the plane. Science is full of mistakes..."

What exactly was the SCIENTIFIC evidence that Earth was flat? Was there a scientific study done to determine the flatness? You're confusing common opinion with scientific results. This is like Ray Comfort saying that science thought Earth was held up by a turtle. It most certainly did not! That's what ignorant people thought as a religious belief. There was no evidence for such a thing.

Anonymous said...

@Everyone hammering Ryan - you're wasting your time - he's still got his magic underwear from his LDS days. "Evil" comments bounce off him like bullets from Superman's chest...

... said...

What about:
I bet the Greeks wouldn't believe in Christianity. Both of you would think you're right, but neither of you have proof.

angryratman said...

I always liked #27.

If creationists agree that;

1) the speed of light is constant
2) a 'light year' is the distance light travels in a year
3) stars are billions of light years away;

Then surely it MUST take billions of years for the light to reach the earth?? (Hence the Universe is f***ing old) ^_^

Anonymous said...

"How about the "scientific fact" that blacks are less able to have higher reasoning than whites?"

not surprising pffhahaha

Anonymous said...

RELIGION is like a penis; it's fine to have one, it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around AND please don't try to shove it down children's throats.

Julie

lolwut said...

I ACCIDENTALLY A COKE BOTTLE. THE WHOLE THING.

Anonymous said...

THere is no anthropomorphic God

Just said...

The FACT is that both science and religion support one another. The bible is a story book, written and rewritten, translated and re translated over hundreds of years. It is not the COMPLETE story of EVERYTHING that ever happened. My first argument as a believer in creation is concerning evolution( which I also believe in). If we intact did evolve, what did we evolve from and where did it come from? Where did all the matter that our universe is made of come from? How about their original building blocks? What set the "big bang" in motion. The Bible says that a thousand years is but a day to God. If there are 365 "days" in a year and we start off with time beginning ......heck let's just say 6 billion years ago........ How would the math work out...... Let's see. 365x1000=365,000. So one year is like 365,000 "God years". That means that in just the 2,000 "people years" since Christ we have time for 730,000,000 years of "evolution". I can't prove I'm right, but you can't prove I'm wrong. That's why it's called FAITH. I have it, atheist don't, and that settles it. Live your life knowing that if the atheist are correct that when I die I will completely cease to exist, but if I'm right, and continue to live my life in a kind and peacefull manner and worship the God I believe in while the atheist rot in hell I will receive eternal peace. Seems like an ok trade off to me. Follow blindly and I can only come out ahead, if my beliefs are wrong, what fate will I suffer. Just my thoughts. Now dig in and rip me apart! I'll be waiting! Peace and love. Me

Admin said...

"If we intact did evolve, what did we evolve from and where did it come from? Where did all the matter that our universe is made of come from? How about their original building blocks? What set the "big bang" in motion."

Substituting a god(s) in for any of these questions is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy, and is unacceptable.

"If there are 365 "days" in a year and we start off with time beginning ......heck let's just say 6 billion years ago........"

You're not in the mainstream of biblical creationists, and this post was therefore not directed at you. No mainstream biblical creationist believes the Universe could be 6 billion years old. They program their kids to ask, "Excuse me, were you there?" of their teacher whenever any historical date of more than 10,000 years ago is mentioned.

"I can't prove I'm right, but you can't prove I'm wrong. That's why it's called FAITH."

Faith is nothing to be proud of. My worldview is evidence-based. you believe the unproven word of ancient goat-herders, as if they had more insight than we do today.

"I have it, atheist don't, and that settles it."

And yet, so many biblical creationists claim that atheists do have faith. You people need to make up your minds.

"...but if I'm right, and continue to live my life in a kind and peacefull manner and worship the God I believe in while the atheist rot in hell I will receive eternal peace."

Ah, Pascal's Wager. Never heard THAT one before. Check my rebuttals to Pascal's Wager from the sidebar, which contain scenarios in which you too will burn forever.

Admin said...

And no, science does not support religion. The science clearly shows that the biblical creation story is wrong. It is completely ruled out.

Science doesn't support the supernatural. Can you cite a case in which it does?

Just said...

Why is it that you all skirted my questions? A question requires an answer, not another question. Again, where did whatever we evolved from originate? Where did the building blocks of our universe originate?

As wonderfully complex as our world is, are we expected to believe it all occured randomly? Its much to organized to have just accidentally happened. There is an intelligent design at work. This intelligence I call God. I have never seen him, but I have never seen Africa either.

MOST atheist seem to lump all Christians into one category, and most Christians lump all atheist into one heap. The truth is that alot of us live our lives exactly the same, with one exception, faith.

Science is an ever evolving discipline. The science of 1,000 years ago, is not the science of today. The science of 20 years ago isn't the science of today. Science is an observation base discipline. If science can't see it happen and then make it happen again and figure out why it happened then science can't fully explain it either.

No I am not your typical Bible thumping Christian. Both of my children were taught about both evolution and creation.
They were given a basic understanding of the Bible and religion and allowed to choose their own path. I don't force my beliefs on anyone. I just offer them as a possible explanation that I have faith in.

Now go back to the first paragraph and answer my original questions please. I'm am curious to hear the explanations.
Thanks in advance for your INTELLIGENT answers, they are the only ones I'm interested in. Peace and love, Me

The Winter Lion said...

The Admin who answered you post was not avoiding your questions, he was simply getting to the end of your argument before you did. However, I'll lay it out more clearly for you.

"If we intact did evolve, what did we evolve from and where did it come from?"

We evolved from an earlier, simpler life form. That life form came from an earlier, simpler, life form, all the way back to the earliest and simplest life form. Where that first life form came from is not evolution, but abiogenesis. Please do not mix the two up.

"Where did all the matter that our universe is made of come from?"

From an initial explosion commonly called the "Big Bang".

"How about their original building blocks?"

Do you mean the the building blocks of the Big Bang? We don't know yet, but we're working on it.

"What set the "big bang" in motion."

We don't know, but we're working on it. Now, and this is the important part, not knowing does not mean "God did it". I don't know where my car keys are. My not knowing does not mean God took them. Your argument is simply "God of the Gaps". Please feel free to google that term and do some reading. I think you will find it very informative.

Does that help? Please feel free to keep asking questions.

Just said...

@ Winter Lion,
I appreciate your answers. However your answers seem to me you have faith as well, faith (basically an unfounded belief) as well, faith in science. We don't know where the matter involved in "big bang" came from, but we believe it was there.
We don't know what put it all in motion, but we believe something did.
We don't know where the basic, I mean the very basic building blocks of life came from, but they obviously came from somewhere, we are here aren't we?
My point is that there had to be something, someone, some form of higher intelligence that set the whole string of events into motion at some point. Our existence is far to complex to have happened at random. Sure there are many unanswered question. Questions of faith and of science. Why is it wrong for a Christian to believe in something that can't be "proven" but ok to believe in science that's not yet finished and therefore unproven?
Why can't the two reside side by side? Evoultion? Heck yeah, 100%, I'm right there with you. Creation, well it had to start some didn't it.
I'm not here to argue, just check out the opposing view. Like I said, I'm not a main stream sheep. I have studied the bible and come to my own conclusions. I don't follow blindly as many do. I am often critized by my fellow Christians for my beliefs. I just tell them we can discuss it in the after life. I have my own system of beliefs in religion and science that coexist peacefully for the most part side by side. The bible is not the strict words of God, but a compilation of many "stories" written by men according to their own personal experiences and their interpitation there of. Nice to find a place to dig a little without being slammed, which is usually what happens. Obviously I'm here in search of answers, not to be converted, but to expand my own understanding of my world.
Thanks for the INTELLIGENT answers and the lack of insulting dialog. Peace, Me

Just said...

@ Winter Lion
Respectfully, one of us is confused. The law of biogenesis basically that life comes from life. What I wanted to know is where that fist form of life that spawned all others come from? See below:

The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized hippo in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for, "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". Pasteur stated: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream").

Get back to ya on the god of the gaps thing.
I have to enlighten myself on that.
Peace, Me

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the post, I enjoy having a wide selection of ways to baffle the fools that believe in creationism. :)

Ellen said...

@Just

"We don't know where the matter involved in "big bang" came from, but we believe it was there."

Could the big bang have happened without matter? It takes no faith whatsoever to believe that an occurrence requiring matter had matter.

"We don't know what put it all in motion, but we believe something did."

If I come home to find a broken window I do not have faith that something caused my window to be broken. I KNOW that something caused my window to be broken. That is not faith.

"Our existence is far to complex to have happened at random."

I don't see any logic in that statement. Complexity is a matter of opinion and is based solely on your basis for comparison. There is the possibility for far more complex structures that just happen to not exist. Evolving the way we did by chance/science rather than some divine intervention does not mean that reality should be any less complex. This is an argument based on your own perception and observation.

Admin said...

"Why is it that you all skirted my questions? A question requires an answer, not another question. Again, where did whatever we evolved from originate? Where did the building blocks of our universe originate?"

Why don't you ask a scientist? Your questions don't deserve an answer because you are attempting an argument from ignorance. I'm heading you off before we get there. The answer to these questions is irrelevant, unless you have proof that the supernatural was involved. And in that case, you shouldn't be telling the world about it here.

"As wonderfully complex as our world is, are we expected to believe it all occured randomly? Its much to organized to have just accidentally happened. There is an intelligent design at work."

Argument from ignorance. Logical fallacy.

"This intelligence I call God. I have never seen him, but I have never seen Africa either."

L-A-M-E. I've seen Africa. I have photos.

"The truth is that alot of us live our lives exactly the same, with one exception, faith."

Faith, also known as 'gullibility' is the belief in things for no reason,and in many cases, even contrary to the evidence.

"Now go back to the first paragraph and answer my original questions please. I'm am curious to hear the explanations."

Go to your nearest university and sign up for a course in biological science or the chemistry of life. You are attempting an argument from ignorance, which is not acceptable. The Winter Lion knows exactly what's going on.

Admin said...

"My point is that there had to be something, someone, some form of higher intelligence that set the whole string of events into motion at some point."

No. Something, perhaps. Someone? No. Intelligence? No.

"Our existence is far to complex to have happened at random."

No. And the randomness is an old line that needs to die. Evolution is somewhat directed by the environment.

Don't you see the giant argument from ignorance? You have nothing. It's amazing to watch a supposedly-educated person struggle to reconcile evidence-based reasoning with a fairy tale from when he was a kid. I feel sorry for you.

"Why is it wrong for a Christian to believe in something that can't be "proven" but ok to believe in science that's not yet finished and therefore unproven?"

Because all we have is nature. Natural processes did everything that's ever been shown. You believe that fairies did it. Nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated to be real. Everything is natural, there is no disembodied intelligence out there.

"I'm not a main stream sheep. I have studied the bible and come to my own conclusions."

That's the biggest problem you people have. You've got a book you claim contains the answers, yet you can't agree on what those answers are. It makes it hard for us to refute you because you come in from all different directions. Many Christians, among them clergy, don't even believe in your Hell.

Admin said...

"Get back to ya on the god of the gaps thing.
I have to enlighten myself on that."

YES, YOU DO. Then when you're attempting a god-of-the-gaps argument, you'll know why we ignore your question completely. This might also help:

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2008/10/stop-scientific-progress-preserve-gods.html

Just said...

Dear "Admin"
It seems that no matter where you turn people are the same. When you can't answer a question you just say how "ignorant" I am. No usefull answer, just a repeat of " you're wrong". The fact is you have a closed mind and are unable to see things from more than one point of view. My God is not a God of gaps. Nothing I have written here implies that.
I simply state that I believe that there is a higher intelligence that I refer to as God. There are no gaps I believe everything has a reason. I'm not saying that god created everything we know today. I am saying that "something", somehow, CREATED what was here in the beginning. When you make a cake the ingredients mixed in a bowl aren't a cake. They are what will become a cake if many different steps are followed properly. If you just put "stuff" in a bowl and let it sit there it will never become a cake no matter how many times you try it. It takes a preplanned set if events to create the cake.
Just because we now have the knowledge to explain how some things came about doesn't mean they happened at random. The "logic" you speak of is illogical. You truly believe that one day purely by coincidence a random bit of some element( where did it come from) just happened to bump into another random bit of some other element( again, where did it come from) and join together, into some other random matter that just happened to form the basic building blocks of all that we know in the universe. Actually, that makes sense to me. The other day I was sitting on the couch reading a book and a blob of carbon collided whith some other stuff and a fish dropped to the floor out of nowhere. If you want to be ignorant I can play stupid too.
I'm here seeking to find out answers not read senseless dribble from someone that can't even explain why they believe what they believe. So if all you can do is say I'm wrong, and call me ignorant you can go put your helmet back on, go back the the basement and play with your etch-a-sketch. I expected alot more from this blog. People like "winter Lion" at least attempt to answer my questions to the best of their beliefs. But you "admin" can't support a thing you say. By the way, I have a bachelors degree in marine biology, as well as an associates in natural science, and still have faith. In fact the two disciplines I just mentioned served to strengthen my beliefs that this all didn't happen at random. This much complexity doesn't happen by accident. Site me one PROVEN instance where it did. Where life as complex as let's just say....... A jellyfish just formed from the elements in you backyard.

You are fueling my belief in fools.
Peace, Me

Admin said...

"When you can't answer a question you just say how "ignorant" I am. No usefull answer, just a repeat of " you're wrong"."

I didn't say you are ignorant. I said you're making an 'argument from ignorance'. That is a real term with a real definition, and you need to look up what it is. No argument from ignorance is a valid argument, so why should I waste my time on such a thing?

"The fact is you have a closed mind and are unable to see things from more than one point of view."

You have an imaginary friend and I don't.

"My God is not a God of gaps. Nothing I have written here implies that."

Oh, you most certainly did imply that. You clearly do not yet understand what god-of-the-gaps and arguments from ignorance are.

"You truly believe that one day purely by coincidence a random bit of some element( where did it come from) just happened to bump into another random bit of some other element( again, where did it come from) and join together, into some other random matter that just happened to form the basic building blocks of all that we know in the universe."

That's the worst explanation of the origin I've heard in a while. Your constant "Where did it come from?" questions are once again an attempt at an argument from ignorance.

"The other day I was sitting on the couch reading a book and a blob of carbon collided whith some other stuff and a fish dropped to the floor out of nowhere."

So you are somewhat like the young-Earth creationists. This is a strawman argument. Again, that's a real term with a real meaning, and you need to look it up.

"I'm here seeking to find out answers not read senseless dribble from someone that can't even explain why they believe what they believe."

You haven't asked me why I believe what I believe. Would you like to know? And again, this is not the place for science answers. Why would you come here? You know there are science journals for that, don't you?

"So if all you can do is say I'm wrong, and call me ignorant you can go put your helmet back on, go back the the basement and play with your etch-a-sketch. I expected alot more from this blog."

No, I said you're making an argument from ignorance. You're definitely ignorant about what that means, it's clear. Again, look it up, because it contains exactly the reason why I need not answer your questions. Why would you expect more from my blog? you expect me to waste my time on arguments from ignorance, or to answer your misdirected science questions?

"People like "winter Lion" at least attempt to answer my questions to the best of their beliefs."

Winter Lion did that because you didn't get the point the first time. He was being charitable.

"This much complexity doesn't happen by accident."

Argument from ignorance, again. Also a strawman argument with the "accident" thing.

"A jellyfish just formed from the elements in you backyard."

Strawman argument.

Admin said...

Dude, you clearly need some assistance, so here it is:

1. A strawman argument is one in which you misrepresent your opponent's position, such as by saying that we think a fish should flop onto our floor out of nowhere after carbon collides with something, then defeat that point. It's like setting up a scarecrow and does nothing to refute the actual point that your opponent is making. In this case, your opponent is evolutionary science and natural processes, not me.

2. An argument from ignorance is an attempt to use things that we don't know (yet), such as what triggered the Big Bang, and assert that therefore your hypothesis is most plausible, without providing any reasonable positive evidence that your hypothesis is valid. It's related to the false dichotomy, in which you assume that it's either natural processes or Jesus. You've excluded so many other possibilities, which is why we require positive evidence.

3. Positive evidence is actual evidence that supports your hypothesis without resorting to some sort of attempt at process of elimination. Actual detection of anything at all supernatural would be a good place to start.

4. And go ask science questions elsewhere. This is not the place. I am not an expert on the current state of research in cosmology or abiogenesis, nor are any of my readers, to my knowledge. I don't know what you expect to accomplish by asking them here. You're obviously looking for the religious angle, or you wouldn't have come here.

5. For the record, my girlfriend also has a degree in marine biology, and thinks you have an imaginary friend.

6. If you want to know what I believe and why, why not read the "About Me" section on the sidebar? Think that might be helpful????

Admin said...

"I have a bachelors degree in marine biology, as well as an associates in natural science, and still have faith."

Again, repeatedly citing your faith is not going to get you anywhere here. You believe stuff for no reason because the culture told you to. If you had any evidence at all for your claim, you wouldn't need faith. Faith=gullibility, so you need to stop advertising it here.

Admin said...

"It's related to the false dichotomy, in which you assume that it's either natural processes or Jesus."

This was poorly worded. Let me try again:

It's related to the false dichotomy, in which you assume that there are only 2 choices, and by (seemingly) eliminating one choice, yours wins by default.

Admin said...

The more I think about that last exchange, the more I smile. I told Justin he was making an argument from ignorance, which means that he is attempting to use SCIENCE'S IGNORANCE to excuse his hypothesis from requiring evidence to be believed. He then comes back at me repeatedly chewing me out for calling him ignorant. Oh, the irony. NOBODY was calling you ignorant before, but now I am calling you ignorant. You'd save yourself some embarrassment if you do not come back here until you know what an argument from ignorance is, and preferably understand why I won't be responding to them as you'd like me to.

Just said...

You say you require positive evidence. Where is your positive evidence that there is no God. According to your logic, if you have none then you are wrong.
You fail to see that I support the belief of evolution. I support the belief of the big bang THEORY. I just believe it is of intelligent design. The intelligence may be little green men from some far away galaxy for all I know. I have never seen God, no one has. So who to say what God may look like. As I have said before, I don't think the Bible is the complete, 100% accurate story of all that has ever happened. It was written by mankind from their own interpretation of their experiences. Then it's was rewritten, translated and retranslated over and over. At best according to it's own text it was written by sinful creatures.
Why would anyone expect it to be 100% accurate? Faith is something we all have. If you have plans for next week, you have faith that you will still be here then or you wouldn't have made plans. All I am asking is for how you think it all began. Where did the very first building blocks come from? If you don't believe they were created that's fine, but just what do you believe? I'm looking for answers my self, help understand what you believe. Stop dancing around the question and answer it. And remember if you have no hardfast evidence that its true, then just as in the case of God, according to your own logic it has to be wrong. Peace, Me
P.S. Tell your girlfriend my imaginary friend knows hers, they're dating!!

Admin said...

"You say you require positive evidence. Where is your positive evidence that there is no God."

Crap, not this again. I've been over this many, many, many, many times on this blog. I am not making a positive claim that there are no gods. I am claiming that you have failed to prove your case. It is also extremely difficult to prove the non-existence of something, which is why burden of proof is typically on the people claiming existence.

"I support the belief of the big bang THEORY."

Why did you capitalise 'theory'? Are you yet another person who doesn't know what 'theory' truly means? It wouldn't surprise me at this point.

"If you have plans for next week, you have faith that you will still be here then or you wouldn't have made plans."

Because we couldn't possibly function if we didn't believe we'll be here tomorrow. Imagine never planning anything at all. We'd all have died off long ago. This is a practical issue. I also know that I am alive and assume that I will continue to be next week. Nothing out of the ordinary needs to occur. Your faith is in the invisible man that has never been demonstrated.

"All I am asking is for how you think it all began. Where did the very first building blocks come from? If you don't believe they were created that's fine, but just what do you believe?"

Through natural processes. We do not yet know the answer to these questions, so I hesitate to hazard a guess. But I was 'dancing around' them because you were setting up an argument from ignorance. Even Lion saw that, as much as you claim he was being nice to you.

"And remember if you have no hardfast evidence that its true, then just as in the case of God, according to your own logic it has to be wrong."

No, no, no! NO! Fuck! Not wrong, just unsubstantiated. And I am making NO claim about the origin other than to say it was natural, which ALL known things in the Universe are. The Universe and its forces are all that has ever been observed. Nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of anything outside the Universe or anything supernatural at all. Ghosts? ESP? Telepathy? Gods? Nothing!

And it's really classy how you made no acknowledgment at all that I was not calling you ignorant or that you didn't know what an argument from ignorance was. For all I know, you still don't. Anyway, I was at least expecting a semi-apology/acknowledgment.

I'm also curious if you only taught your children the biblical creation story, or if you also taught them others, such as the Australian aboriginal Dreamtime. Don't close your mind, explore all options! Right? Right?

Admin said...

I need to show more patience with you on things like in the last post. I have to remember that as many times as I've been over them with others, you may not have heard them yet.

Admin said...

Actually, as for the planning thing, no. I don't have faith that I'll be here next week. I've also made preparations for my death, leaving key information about accounts and things with other people. I am prepared for both life and death. It's covering all of my bases, not faith.

Just said...

Ok, I admit I was frustrated. The same principals you say disprove my believe also works against you. Even your girlfriend thought so. So yes I do owe you an appologie.
Sorry I lost my cool.
I have questions and I seek answers, not arguments.
I didn't respond immediately last night because I was watching a 2 hr show on Discovery Channel about evolution. I found it extremely interesting. Even they had no
Real idea on where the basic building blocks came from.
Even God has no firm explanation, where did he come from? But just as you choose to believe nature set it all in motion, I believe it was set in motion by an intelligent design. "Nature" is just to freaking complex to just happen.
In my view "nature" was CREATED with a set of rules and allowed to develop into what we have today. I'm not going to try to convince you that you're wrong, I just want to better understand how you come to your conclusions, when just like me you have no proof. So again, sorry for losing my cool. But it seems to me as though you are dancing all around my questions. I have a great deal of knowledge of our universe and the natural world. I not looking for a scholarly answer, just a concise explanation of why you believe as you do.
Peace,Me

Admin said...

I want to add that when the answers to these questions are found, it will probably be the case that only people with serious knowledge of physics will be able to understand it. So it will be pointless in either case to ask a guy like me.

Just said...

I taught my children the Biblical creation story. I also taught them my beliefs in evolution, and my own personal feelings on the two. I don't know of the " dream time", but love to understand others beliefs. That's what I'm here for. I'll look it up today. I am not closed minded. I am very open minded. Still trying to figure out this argument from ignorance thing tho. Seems like a two way street to nowhere to me. And we keep passing eachother.
See ya in the next pass. Peace, ME

Admin said...

"Even they had no
Real idea on where the basic building blocks came from."

Exciting research in this area recently. Progress is being made.

"But just as you choose to believe nature set it all in motion, I believe it was set in motion by an intelligent design."

Yet I'm ahead on this one because I can show that nature, physics, chemistry, etc., are real.

"But it seems to me as though you are dancing all around my questions."

I believed you were setting up the argument from ignorance. It's not like that's never happened here before.

". I am not closed minded. I am very open minded."

I believe the quote is attributed to Carl Sagan, "It's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out." I'm open to anything that actually can be supported with evidence. Much as you're probably not open to the idea that the flowers in the garden grow because of magic pixies, I do not believe things which cannot be supported.

"Still trying to figure out this argument from ignorance thing tho."

It's not difficult. My co-worker put it this way when we discussed it today. David Copperfield does a magic trick, cutting a girl in half. You ask me how he did it. I say that I don't know. You say that he actually did cut the girl in half and put her back together. I say prove it. You ask me if I have any better idea. I say that no I don't. You say then that you don't have to prove that the girl was actually cut in half, because I don't have any better idea. Is that acceptable?

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2008/10/questions-atheists-cant-answer.html

Just said...

like I said it's a two way street we keep passing eachother on. This "argument of ignorance" works both ways. I have no proof of God other than to say look around you, it wasn't an accident. You have no proof that there is no God, just science that can show how thing may have occured. Still haven't had time for the day dream thing yet, but I will educate my self. Peace, Me

Admin said...

"I have no proof of God other than to say look around you, it wasn't an accident. You have no proof that there is no God, just science that can show how thing may have occured."

And yet when asked, you make a claim, that there is a god that did it. I said I'd hesitate to guess. Looking around is not proof of the existence of gods,and is about as far from it as one can get. You're bordering on the argument from personal disbelief. It's when you say, "I don't believe this could have happened naturally", therefore I'm going to dedicate my life to worshiping an unseen being and having some kind of relationship with it and its zombie son. You have no evidence that a god created this universe, no evidence that a mind can exist outside a physical brain, no evidence that there is such a place where the creature could live, no evidence for heaven, no evidence for hell, no evidence for the soul, no evidence for Jesus' resurrection, etc. As long as you admit you've got no good reason for this belief, I suppose that's as far as we can get.

And again, proof that there are no gods would be impossible to come by. Proof that there is a god would be fairly easy, if they hadn't stipulated that it was the kind of god that hides from us every chance it gets, but really wants us to believe in it anyway. It's exactly the same as what we'd expect if there wasn't such a creature.

"Still haven't had time for the day dream thing yet, but I will educate my self."

It's Dreamtime, but that wasn't the point. There are thousands of creation stories out there, each with the same amount of evidence as your biblical one. I chose one of those to make a point. That you educated your children on only 2 possibilities, in the name of maintaining open pathways for them, but ignored all the rest because those stories are not part of your culture. It's as if you don't realise that your story is nothing special when compared to the others. Why favour it?

Admin said...

The "look around at the world" evidence is so old and so lame that they literally facepalm on the Atheist Experience show when they hear it. It's known as the "look at the trees" proof.

Gravity can create order. Gravity combined with the bonding of atoms together and the fusion of nuclei can create stars. This is not evidence for anything supernatural.

And I'd love to hear how you got from "there must be a creator" to Jesus. Perhaps because it was the religion that was taught to you? I doubt you undertook a critical analysis of all of the world's religions, examined the various evidence for truth, then made your choice. Clearly you did not, as you don't know of Dreamtime.

Just said...

Back from my dreamtime excursion, as well as a few other creation stories. Seems to me that they almost all have a great many similarities. Strange how the basic story stays the same among most religions isn't it. Must be nature that made all these different people from a these different cultures make up the same basic story. The story line is very similar, just the characters change, and of course some of the events. There's still a creator. There is still a flood. There is still war among tribes. There is still a beginning and a predicted ending in almost every case.
I guess it's just natural selection at work again. The stories just whittled down to the same basic premise, a creator, a higher being, spirit,elf, whatever you want to call it. I call it God.
Just for fun I'm going to give you some of my answers to your questions at the beginning of this post. I'm working from an iPhone so give me some time, there's alot of back and forth on my end. Peace, Me

Just said...

Answer to #1

Fundamentaly there are very few differences in most. The basic premise remains the same. A supreme power that creates the universe and all that it contains. The supreme power is called many different things, but is almost always there.

Answer to #2

This is a deep one for me. I basically believe that Noah took each type, not species of animal. Remember, I to believe in evolution. Darwin took care of the rest.
For instance, one set of feline, one set of k9, ect. ect....

Answer to #3

Noah took 14 of each clean animal and 2 of each unclean animal. So there was plenty on meat to eat. As far as the herbivores. Most plant matter floats, not all but most. Would have been easy to collect along the way. And yes the carnivores would have had to eat the clean animals, that's why there were 14 of each.

Answer#4

Still not sure about this one, but there are many species that end up well outside their range even today. How did land tortoises end up on galapagos? Darn sure didn't swim there. How about the Komodo dragon? Maybe they travelled on a mass of floating debris, maybe they evolved from another form of life.

#5
He is a wise God. Without death there can be only a limited amount of life. It's a viscous cycle. We live, we breed, we die. Happens to all forms of life.
As far as cruelty goes, that's a perceptive thing. To a loin it isn't cruel to crush the windpipe of a wildebeast. To us it may seem so.

#6

Who said God created pain suffering and disease for the animals? There goes that darned evolution again. Like I said , we live, we breed, we die. What happens in between isn't controlled by God. It's controlled by Nature, evolution, and the highest form of intelligence in a given area.

#7

All humans weren't punished for the sins of one man. One man was punished for every mans sins. Have you ever read the story? They didn't hang everyone on the cross.

This is kinda fun, but my fingers are getting tired.

#8
Mankind is of a sinful nature. That's what the whole cross deal was about. Maybe this is What evolution has done for us.

#9
This is a good one. Remember I don't believe that the bible is to complete story of all that happened. It never says that he ONLY made Adam and Eve and no one else.

And last but not least for tonight #10

Ever been to a party and played the little game where you tell a story to someone who passes it on, and so on and so on? Does that story ever make it back to you the same as it left? Answer: NO! It is always changed, added to, some parts are missing, but it's never the same story. Now let's try the same thing with a complex story over thousands of generations. I think you can see where this would lead. Alot of different stories with many similarities. Just what we have today.
Ok..... Gotta go. Need my beauty sleep. Be back to play some more tomorrow.
Peace, Me

Admin said...

"Strange how the basic story stays the same among most religions isn't it."

Yes, they all start with more-or-less nothing and have some supernatural beings create something. I don't really see how the story could vary much from that.

"The story line is very similar, just the characters change, and of course some of the events."

Uh-huh. You mean that they're different.

"There's still a creator."

Of course there is. That's why they're religions. They knew nothing about particle physics, so what would you expect?

"There is still war among tribes."

I wonder where they would have gotten THAT part from? Probably the fact that we've had tribal warfare since before we were hominids.

"There is still a beginning and a predicted ending in almost every case."

And why shouldn't there be? Even the scientific story has both. Things begin and things end.

As for the flood comment, are you sure you're not a young-Earth creationist? You claim not to be but have some striking similarities. Not many people outside of young-Earth creationism take the flood story as historical fact.

Admin said...

First of all, you're not a biblical creationist as targeted by this post. But OK.

"Answer to #1

Fundamentaly there are very few differences in most. The basic premise remains the same. A supreme power that creates the universe and all that it contains. The supreme power is called many different things, but is almost always there."

Yes, all ancient people could think of was some form of gods. The fact that their description of the gods are ALWAYS different (monotheistic god of love vs. polytheistic elephant gods of destruction or whatever) should send a real red flag up. Instead, you're finding comfort in the similarity.

"Answer to #2

This is a deep one for me. I basically believe that Noah took each type, not species of animal. Remember, I to believe in evolution. Darwin took care of the rest.
For instance, one set of feline, one set of k9, ect. ect...."

I'm sorry, WHAT? You're reconciling a literal Noah's flood with evolution? Even with one set of each "type", you've still got a huge fricking problem on your hands. I couldn't even possibly begin to address this until you explain EXACTLY how you think this all works out. You're in conflict with almost every Christian on Earth, because you've gone halfway.

"Answer to #3

Noah took 14 of each clean animal and 2 of each unclean animal. So there was plenty on meat to eat. As far as the herbivores. Most plant matter floats, not all but most. Would have been easy to collect along the way. And yes the carnivores would have had to eat the clean animals, that's why there were 14 of each."

Holy crap, you do believe the boat story! Well, how big does this boat now need to be, now that you've like added 7 times as many animals.

"Answer#4

Still not sure about this one, but there are many species that end up well outside their range even today. How did land tortoises end up on galapagos? Darn sure didn't swim there. How about the Komodo dragon? Maybe they travelled on a mass of floating debris, maybe they evolved from another form of life."

Perhaps, but as the question is about koalas that somehow get from Turkey to Australia (walking?) without leaving any populations or fossils behind, seems kinda strange.

Admin said...

"#5
He is a wise God. Without death there can be only a limited amount of life. It's a viscous cycle. We live, we breed, we die. Happens to all forms of life.
As far as cruelty goes, that's a perceptive thing. To a loin it isn't cruel to crush the windpipe of a wildebeast. To us it may seem so."

Right, because an omnipotent and all-loving god could not possibly have come up with a system which doesn't work this way. I call bullshit! You're making excuses for the incompetence of this thing. And yes, it is cruel! I notice you included the lion's perspective and humans', but not that of the WILDEBEEST, which is the one having the cruelty inflicted on it! Your god is a blood-thirsty monster of a bastard if you think this is OK!

"#6

Who said God created pain suffering and disease for the animals? There goes that darned evolution again. Like I said , we live, we breed, we die. What happens in between isn't controlled by God. It's controlled by Nature, evolution, and the highest form of intelligence in a given area."

You're picking and choosing what you like best of each story without regard for any evidence. The god that controls all of these things, floods, Noah, etc, then takes hands off completely, and not only doesn't create pain and suffering, but also doesn't do anything to stop it, which is what an all-loving omnipotent creature would do.

"Who said God created pain suffering and disease for the animals?"

The real creationists? I think you're pretty out of touch with what mainstream creationists think.

"#7

All humans weren't punished for the sins of one man. One man was punished for every mans sins. Have you ever read the story? They didn't hang everyone on the cross.

This is kinda fun, but my fingers are getting tired."

Do you know what original sin is? That which the Christians try to erase with baptism? Do you know how many preachers support the doctrine that women's periods were created for the sins of Eve?

Look, I'm giving up now. You're clearly picking and choosing what parts of the bible you want to believe. You can't support a damn thing you wrote with ANY evidence at all, and I'm getting tired of it.

Your mind must be terribly conflicted. There is a rational person bursting to escape from inside you, but you are restricted by these ridiculous stories of arks and floods, etc. You're also not a young-Earth creationist in the classical sense, and so these questions are much less useful for you.

Admin said...

And one more thing about our previous topic. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation is often the best. You've also taken the argument from ignorance a hell of a lot further than I have.

Me:

Natural processes probably created the Universe because natural processes are all that exist. Let's leave it at that until we know more and go on with our lives.

You:

A supernatural being most likely created the Universe. It lives in a realm which cannot be demonstrated to exist, and made all of creation using techniques which cannot be demonstrated to be real. It created people and then flooded us out. But it told a man to take all of the animals and put them on a boat, so it could save some. It knocked up a virgin to send a part of itself, which is both itself and its son, to Earth to be crucified and resurrected for the bad things I think in my head. It wants me to eat the flesh and drink the blood of its long-dead son, whom is supposed to come back someday to take all of the good people to paradise in an unknown realm, and send the bad people to be tortured forever in a different unknown realm. And it really, really loves us. It cannot communicate any of this accurately to all people of Earth because it believes that we have to figure out what it wants from a book written and revised by goat-herders, liars and murders. It means that almost everybody comes up with a different idea of what's going on, such that my view of events is shared by nobody except myself.

You have not one shred, not one little bit of evidence for ANY of this story that YOU have concocted. I usually don't accuse the Christians of concocting the story, just following the one told to them, but in this case, your story is yours. You made it from the part of you which is in reality, combined with the fairy tales you read, which were given to you by the culture to the exclusion of the fairy tales of other cultures. You then base your life on this massive combined ball of bullshit and come on to forums debating people who don't believe it and who actually respect evidence. You're a grown man who argues about his imaginary friend.

There is nothing, not one thing you've written which gives me any reason to even consider the possibility that you could be right. It's appallingly ridiculous. How does one create such an enormous ball of bullshit, without any concern at any point along the way, for evidence? How can one not even attempt to verify a story such as this through the use of evidence?

And if you say that any inaccuracies in the bible are because it has been revised and isn't supposed to be taken literally, and that any omission or other such thing is because it isn't the complete story of everything, what good is it for getting any information at all? Why should I believe even one single word it says, in that case?

Admin said...

These latest revelations have me realising just how much of my time I've wasted. I thought I was discussing with a rational person, but in the end I found somebody who doesn't care whether or not his beliefs are true. If you cared even one little bit about the truth, you would be very disturbed about the lack of evidence for the major portions of your story, and you would be trying to find some. Instead, you're content to have none and wait for evidence that you're wrong, which not only shifts the burden of proof, but also is extremely difficult to provide, no matter how wrong you are in reality. You are living a delusion and are happy about it, with no intention to change no matter what.

And with this non-literal Bible combined with "not the story of everything", you have wrapped yourself in a completely unassailable cocoon. It is perhaps not even possible to debate you if you have a religion which depends on a book, but are completely comfortable throwing out any part which doesn't match evidence, while claiming that the rest is true. Or maybe it's true. It's so hard to tell because it's been revised so many times, you know?

What would you think of a science book which attempted to communicate knowledge and had the same problems?

Here's a scenario. The Bible is not to be taken literally, and there is no heaven, no hell, there never was a Jesus, you do not really have a soul and a god never did create everything. It was written by a bunch of ignorant bronze-age men who had no idea about the world around them and were attempting to explain it.

Just said...

If all the things you say are true. Let's. Say there is no God. Why would it bother you that I choose to live my life in a kind, compassionate, peaceful, and loving way? Either way I live a happy life. The only difference is in the end. If you are right, I will never know it. I will just cease to exist. If I'm right then I receive " the great reward".
You are also wrong to say I have no evidence of any of this. There are heaps of evidence for evolution, the great flood and many other biblical stories.
I'll find ya some links later.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, just understand your believe and how you came to them. Is still don't get where you believe the basic building blocks came from. I've had some atheist tell me they believe in a higher power, just not the God of the bible.
Tonight I'll work on some more of your post questions.
If nothing else it will be entertaining.

Peace, Me

Feki said...

Mr. Just said:

"I'm not trying to convert anyone, just understand your believe and how you came to them. Is still don't get where you believe the basic building blocks came from."

Please get this: atheism is not a belief system. It is not taught in schools or through correspondence courses, there is no prayer, there is no organization behind it, there is no supreme leader nor priests.

In other words, atheism is not a religion and does not provide a unified, single explanation to things. Science provides explanations, and since it's constantly making new discoveries then the concept of "definite explanation" is not applicable. And that's the beauty of it, we get to know more and understand things more clearly as time passes, as old knowledge is confronted and questioned and left behind in a trail that has brought us increasingly healthier and longer lives, better communication and transport technologies, improved food production processes etc etc.

I can't of anything that "faith" or your zombie-carpenter of a god has actually contributed to human progress.

See, atheism is more like an adjetive applied to people who disregard the existence of gods. Agnostics grant a chance for the existance of a greater power, but generally acknowledge that this "greater power" does not give a crap about mankind.

Just said...

It's so sad when people resort to putting others down, applying ignorant disrespectful names to others. That really is beneath you. You are obviously an intelligent person. Statements like " zombie like carpenter of a God" make you sen so, so,....... Never mind. I think you get my point. I have never put down or ridiculed any or you beliefs. I choose to rise above that. I did get out of line, you called me out, and I apologized.

I'm not asking the atheist community what they believe, I'm asking you what YOU believe. The only answer I have reay gotten to the basic building blocks question is , I dont know. How can YOU not know what YOU believe ???

rhedkrow said...

'Stumbled' on this blog, read the comments laughed at the silliness and gave it the thumbs up for brilliant reposts from Mr Admin. Ahh thanks for an entertaining 10 mins. I do so love the moment, at age 9, standing in the courtyard of my catholic primary school wearing my shitty school uniform with a dead man on a cross around my neck, when I realised religion was bollocks. I have never looked back since, well maybe a few times but only to laugh uproariously at those idiots still praying and postulating and eating bits of wafer at mass.

Admin said...

I'm done with this conversation. That ark thing was just too much. It's a waste of my time.

If Jim, Feki, or Daniel or anybody else wants to take over, be my guest. But I suspect it would be a waste of your time, too.

Just said...

Just like most atheist I speak with you apparently have no idea what you actually believe in. You dance around without answering the actual question. You are evasive when asked how did it actually begin. You can only regurgitate what science has told you. You require physical "data" in order to believe in something. There are way more questions than answers, this I know. But YOU are the ONLY ONE that knows why you believe what YOU do.
The only reason you won't answer the question is because the answer is somewhere somehow the basics had to have been created by something. That's right CREATED! You and I both know it but one of us is afraid to admit it. I have ready told you that I very well could be wrong about it all, I admit that, but I am doing nothing I dont want to do to stay within my faith. I am a free thinker, I decide what I think, not the bible. Admitedly it has been a compass that helps me find my direction sometimes, but that's it. My beliefs are just that. MY beliefs. I know very few "Christians" that share my beliefs. I do know alot of "Christians" that are very rich, live an extravagant life style and give nothing back to their community. That is why I don't take part in organized religion. To me it's better for church to be in the man than the man be in church. So tuck your tail and run
from the question. It's easier that way. You don't have to admit anything. I know , I know........ " there's nothing to admit". Heard it before. I'm sure I'll hear it avian. I have only ever found three "atheist" that would answer that question. They believed in a higher power, just not "God".
No Jesus or Noah, no flood or ark. Just a higher power, an intelligence that created the design. Just for kicks I'm going to continue answering your questions. See ya later.
Peace, Me

Jim said...

Why did they have to be created? And by this definition, what created your god? Surely if "the basics" HAD to be created, your god MUST have been created. So who created your god? And your god's creator? And their creator, and so on and so forth.

The simple fact is, your religion and your "faith" offer no answers. It offers no proof. It offers nothing scientifically or intellectually factual. It offers the unseen and the unjustifiable. Nothing your religion (or any religion) has ever come close to proving anything that would substantiate your claims. And that is your problem. You offer an argument (there is a god) but provide no proof. You provide no evidence. You provide nothing at all that could validate your argument.

Whereas we atheists do the opposite. We make a claim (the universe started at the Big Bang) and we provide proof. The expansion rate of the universe, the age of the universe, the temperature of the universe, the size of the universe, the microwave background, etc. The Big Bang is the single best-proved theory in all of science. Everything points to the Big Bang as being the starting point for our existence. And we provide solid, observable, tangible proof.

And it's not just the Big Bang. Evolution, planet formation, stellar formation, natural selection, etc. All of our claims have solid proof. All of our claims are backed up by evidence.

Whereas any claim by a religion is lacking a shred of scientifically viable proof. There is no proof that a great flood covered the Earth. There is no proof that Jesus was nothing more than a person. There is no proof that god created anything. There is no proof that there is an afterlife. There is no proof that Adam and Eve were real. There is no proof.

This is the problem atheists have with religion. Religious people make absurd claims and refuse to prove them. They constantly tell us to prove that their gods don't exist. But it's impossible to prove a negative. If I asked you to prove that Pepsi is not my favorite drink, how would you do that?

It's absurd that you still think atheist "believe" in something, even though you have been told time and again that we do not. If we "believed" in something, we would not be atheist.

There is only one real thing any religion has to do in order to convert every single atheist in the world. And it's the one thing they can't ever do: Provide one single piece of viable, scientific, irrefutable piece of proof that any god or supernatural being (yes, this includes your "creator") exists. That's it. You made the claim, you back it up. That's all we ask.

Just said...

Please gather round to partaketh of the wisdom which shall abound.

11. God does thing according to his own will, not ours.

12. Who the heck are "Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and Kirk Cameron"?? Never heard of them.

13. Ohhh..... That's an unlucky number, maybe I better skip it.........NOT! I know how a car was made, that doesn't mean the people that made it don't exist. According to your "logic" since I figured out how it was done then that means no one did it. The car just happened......... Yeah.... I'll buy that........

14. This is a let down. I thought these would be harder to answer. YOUR scientific evidence is the evidence of creation, it's here isn't it!?! Duh!

15. Ya just don't get it! We evolved from what was created!

Admin said...

(In response to Jim) And until we do get some evidence, he's a grown-up pitching a ridiculous fairy tale as the truth and as a way of life. And then he wonders why we laugh at him at call him names. Because he's fucking crazy! As Thunderf00t puts it, "Why do people laugh at creationists? Only creationists don't know why."

Just said...

Ok...... On with the class.........

16. Ever heard of continental drift or plate tectonics?
The land masses of the earth are in constant motion.
Every years it's farther and farther to my mailbox, isn't it to yours?

17. See above.


18. If it ain't broke don't fix it!! Tune it up maybe, add a little here and there...... Sure. But if it works well there's no need for a redisign.

19. A world populated with only photosynthetic life could tip the scales, upsetting the balance of things. Too much oxygen in the atmosphere and BOOM!!!! It all goes up in smoke.

20. This is easy. God decided oneday to make the universe........ What can I say... He was bored, they didn't have cable back then. He snapped his fingers and BANG.
No really....... This "Big Bang Theory" is how we think the universe was formed. We reall don't know, but it's an excellent hypothesis. The bible doesn't say how God made the world, just that he did. So let's assume this is how he did it. I fail to see how any of this points away from a creator. Seems to be a little more evidence of intelligent design.

Ok..... Enough for tonight. Too much of a good thing is just that..... Too much. We don't want your head to explode. Tune in tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel for the conclusion of the answers to these simple questions.
Night night. Peace Me

Just said...

@Jim. Do I understand you to say an atheist doesn't believe in anything??
" if we believed in something we would not be atheist"
You mean you DON'T believe in the big bang, or evolution? Don't get it how can you not believe anything?

It is very possible to prove a negative. I can prove sound is not coming out of a speaker. I can prove there is no water in my glass. I can prove there are no aardvarks in my living room. It's very easy to prove a negative. IF you have the PROOF! Not evidence that suggest, but as you say cold hard facts. No theories. Neither side has proof. But to you that lack of proof means I'm wrong. I'm not saying Anyone is wrong. Just trying to pry into the minds of people that think differently than me. Why doesn't the lack of proof mean that you are wrong?( not theories, or evidence, PROOF!!).
Peace, Me

Feki said...

Just,

You have clearly made up your mind to assume that everybody has beliefs like religious people do, so you’re just really expecting us to say “I believe the string theory explains it all” or “I believe in evolution” or “I believe in Carl Sagan’s ghost”. That’s all BS, as well as your alleged atheists believing in hiya powa, they sound like my vegan friend having extra bacon on cous-cous salad.

I don’t think it will make a difference to re-state that atheism and science are neither beliefs nor require a belief system. So let me give you a few examples:

1) Evolution does not require people to believe in it. Evolution is observable, it’s been evidenced and yet continues to be a fascinating field of study from which we have derived vast knowledge about our species. Evolution happens, regardless of your faith in Jeeza or how much you or I manage to understand how evolution works.

2) Gravity is a fact and there is no such thing as a “belief in gravity”. Gravity force on Earth pulls you towards its center at a known acceleration. Care to explain it with celestial crap? Don’t think so.

3) Thunder storms do not have supernatural causes that need no constant devotion/praying/belief. Your hominid ancestors were afraid of thunder and cowered before it, but nowadays you don’t have to fear thunder because of it being caused by some angry deity, right? Why’s that? Oh yeah, science explained it to us…

4) Do you believe in antibiotics? Do you pray for antibiotics to heal your body from a given infection? Sure you may not understand exactly how antibiotics work on your system but you sure know for a fact that some big pharma company put together a team of researchers to come up with something that effectively kills bacteria. You don’t need to believe in Saint Louis Pasteur or in the holy Glaxo Smith Kline, do you? Yet you take them when you need them, right?

5) Origin of the Universe. To the best of my knowledge most facts about the Universe has been established. Yes, there are certain gaps that are currently being researched, but I am not obligated to believe in a particular scientific explanation. That is, I am inclined to think favorably on the side of the best fitting, most sensical explanation available for said gaps, and like Admin said: the simplest “Occam Razor’s” explanation does not involve arks, burning bushes, talking snakes, rib-women, demonic-possessed suicidal pigs, lakes of fire for eternal torment etc etc etc. None of that makes sense, even figuratively. And as lame as it is, why would your particular supernatural explanation be any better than the one held by Indians, Aztecs, Greeks, Romans, Buddhists, Polynesians etc?

As for your nagging question on the “origin of matter”, again, I DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE IN ANYTHING. I don’t go day by day wondering what happened to matter/energy before it was compressed into a singularity which exploded and formed the universe (if that’s how it happened). Yes it would be interesting to know, and believe me there will be more interesting attempts at scientifically explaining that, which will all be far more sensical than holy pigeons. Was the world flat? Was it turtles all the way down? Was the Moon made of cheese? Scientific knowledge provides me with facts I can trust. Since I have no concern for heaven nor hell (or virgins or limbo or reincarnation) I am not at all concerned with finding a “gap” where to justify the existence this alleged “maker”. (like Jim said, the maker needs a maker, just like your car factory, and so on ad nauseam… which makes the argument laughable: as per your logic “god must have a god must have a god must have a god…”).


You can go ahead and believe that the Earth is flat, held by an ox standing on a turtle, that mankind originated by incest, and that an omniscient being was so bored of sitting on his omnipotent thumb that he created a universal drama by snapping his omnipresent fingers.

Yeah, that's superb.

:D

Just said...

Kewl. But please quit grouping me in with the bible thumping, snake handling, fire and brimstone mindless Christians. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!never have been, never will. Neither of my parents ever forced church on me. When I did go it was of my own accord.
I did attend a Christian school for one year, but only because I was expelled from public school.( used to have a nasty temper) I found my own way into religion and faith. It wasn't taught to me. I formed my beliefs through my own studies. Almost a Christian science sort of thing, but not really. I except evolution, and the big bang. I also think science has explained some biblical events, which kinda proves they happened. I just still believe in a creator, and you're right, nothing will change my mind.

Jim said...

Just, I do not believe in the Big Bang or evolution. You are correct. Feki did a great job explaining it.

The difference is, whether I believe it or not, these things will still be true. But if everyone stops believing in your gods, they will no longer exist.

A fact is a fact, no matter what. A fairy tale is a fairy tale, only if people buy into it.

Also, it should be noted that your proofs of a negative are different than what you would need to disprove something you can't touch, see or hear. Allow me to briefly explain.

Your examples require an absence of evidence (no water, no sound, no aardvarks). This is far different than the negative you ask atheists to prove. Why is that? Well, because you are not asking us to find an absence of evidence. You are asking us to find evidence of an absence. This is impossible to do.

Now, why is this impossible to prove, whereas your examples are quite easy to prove? Well, let's assume our universe were the size of a 12x12x12 room. It is a complete vacuum, the walls are perfectly white, and there is a single light lighting the entire room. Besides the light, the room is completely empty. Now, you ask me to find a couch. Clearly, we can see if there is a couch or not. But because there is nothing in the room besides a light, the absence of the couch proves there is no couch. This is an absence of evidence. Very simple to do in our small example universe. It's a confined space, with limited boundaries.

Now, let's say you have an infinite space. And this infinite space contains nothing as far as you can see. Now I tell you that in this space, there is a small copper BB. However, you disagree and say that there is no BB in this entire infinite space. How would you be able to prove to me that this BB does not exist? You would have to provide me with evidence of absence. You would have to cover every square centimeter of an infinite space to prove to me that the BB does not exist. A task that is mathematically impossible given the infinite space.

This is what you are trying to do with your gods. I hope this clears it up a bit.

Admin said...

Jim, in my opinion, the Pepsi thing was a bad example. The BB is a much better one. My high school science teacher used the example of trying to prove that there were no red swans in the world. You can conduct a search, and report that you found none, therefore they don't exist. I then say, "Oh, but you didn't look everywhere, such as behind this boulder". You then admit I'm right, and conduct a more thorough search in which you really do look everywhere (an impossibility in a real-world example). You then declare that there are no red swans, and you have proven it. But then I get religulous on you and say that there is a red swan, but it is in a realm outside of this Universe and cannot be tested for. Then I challenge you to prove that it doesn't exist. You deservedly smack me in the head. It's an impossible task made even more impossible by the absurd restrictions put on the search by the religious.

It seems that besides not knowing what an argument from ignorance is and not knowing what 'theory' means, our poster also doesn't know what 'burden of proof' means, nor does he know who it rests with. And it rests that way for a VERY good (and practical) reason.

Admin said...

From Wikipedia, "Burden of proof"

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim....

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts....

Scientists, in addition to limits to cognition and longevity, must deal with limited funds and resources. When forming hypotheses, they default to the heuristic of methodological naturalism, a tool of science that is based on induction. Immaterial causes and effects are usually not added to the list of possible causes and effects, not because they are logically impossible, but because induction has taught us not to expect immaterial causes and effects. Ignoring the immaterial is efficient, because either there is enough information available to explain the observed phenomenon, or inclusion of immaterial causes increases the amount of ambiguity, leading to unnecessary complexity. (See Occam's Razor.) The expectation is, instead, that each new mysterious phenomenon will have a material cause, and there is a legitimate heavy burden of proof on those who claim that the cause is found in an immaterial domain, a domain that has not yet been confirmed by science. In whatever domain of proposed solutions there is a lower expectation of a viable solution due to an inductive determination that such a domain has had little or no historical success in advancing science, scientists are warranted in ignoring this domain until scientific successes begin to confirm the explanatory and predictive efficacy of this domain and its proposed agents of causation....

A commitment to the heuristic of burden of proof also eliminates game stoppers in discourse in which negative evidence is demanded by the party making the positive claim. The party making the positive claim that fairies exists, for example, cannot demand that disbelievers provide evidence that fairies do not exist. The best way to ensure ontological parsimony and an efficient reasoned discourse is to have the side making the positive claim provide the positive evidence....

The fallacy of argument from ignorance (sometimes known as demanding negative proof) is a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted. In other words, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion. Russell's teapot is a response to this fallacy....

As a general rule, the less coherent and less embedded within conventional knowledge a claim appears, the heavier the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the claim. The scientific consensus on cold fusion is a good example. The majority of physicists believe cold fusion is not possible, since it would force the alteration or abandonment of a great many other tested and generally accepted theories about nuclear physics....

Admin said...

I'd like to see how much all of these "negative proofers" like Justin would bitch and cry if they were dragged off the street by the cops and told they were going to prison unless they could prove they didn't commit the crime. They'd surely be all turned around about where the burden of proof lies then, wouldn't they? They'd cry their little eyes out about how it's innocent until proven guilty, and how the police must prove their case, not the other way around.

This is why I call the negative proofers intellectually dishonest, or maybe just a little dim.

Admin said...

Prosecutor: "Your honour, this man committed a crime."

Judge: "I see. What evidence do you have for this?"

Prosecutor: "Well, can you prove that he didn't?"

Judge: "Hmmm.... no, I can't. I am therefore justified in believing that he committed the crime. I will sentence him to 20 years in prison, with no chance of parole for 15 years."

Prosecutor: "Justice has truly been served on this day."

Justin: "What the fuck just happened? Are you fucking serious? Fuck you, you fucking assholes! I didn't do it!"

Judge: "That's what you believe. In the absence of evidence, I'm entitled to believe what I believe. Have fun in your cell."

Jim said...

I agree that the Pepsi example was not the best. But I still hold that it is impossible to prove that it is not my favorite drink.

I would also like to point out to Just that he has fallen into a "First Cause" paradox. I've already explained that his claim that the universe MUST have been created by a creator demands that the creator must have, in turn, been created. And so on and so forth. The problem with a "First Cause" paradox is that it is a paradox. And because of that, we must assume the argument is wrong. Why? Because it demands infinite regression. And infinite regression is an impossible concept.

Just said...

Please be seated, class is in session. Today's topic is science in the bible. Most of the following principals were mentioned in the bible thousands of years before science "discovered" them. I think that it shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the information in the bible was atleast inspired by a source of intelligence far greater than ours. This "book of fairy tales written by goat herders and dictated by a barefoot carpenter" my just be a little more than you think. I have supplied the book and verses for
each concept but you will have to look it up on you're own.
I assume that most of you haven't taken a CLOSE look at the bible, so this just may enlighten you as to how Christians can have "blind faith". With many biblical statements being proven by science thousands of years later if feel we can expect more to come.

Just said...

We'll start the Bibles mention of DINOSAURS.
That's right, the bible mentions dinosaurs. Intact it gives a description of some if them.
JOB 40:15. 41:1

Stars are mentioned in incalculable numbers. Only about 3,000 are visible with the naked eye. Even with the crude telescopes that MAY have been available when the bible was written all stars would have looked alike. Yet the bible mentions that each star is unique. Again, these were some incredibly smart goat herders.
GENESIS 22:17. Jeramiah33:22. 1st Corinthians 15:41

The bible describes some of the motion of our universe as well as our own moons effect on the ocean. Again, WAY! before science figured it out.
Jeremiah 31:35,36

The bible also describes the earth being suspended in nothingness. NOT being held on the back of a turtle as FALSLEY stated by "admin". (do your homework!)
Job 26:7

Just said...

Are you guys keeping up with me. Don't be afraid to face the FACTS. The bible told us about alot of stuff long long before science figured it out. It's taken thousands of years for atheist scientist to figure out what christains knew all along.
Lets keep moving along..........ok..........

How about the global circulation of natural air currents? The bible mentions them as well.
Ecclesiastes 1:6

It tell us that blood is the life of the flesh. That blood is what gives us life. I think we can all agree on that.
It took our great scientist untill the early 1600's to figure it out, but the "goat herders" had it right in 1400....BC!!!
Leviticus 17:11

How about biogenesis?? (basically from life comes life)
Genisis1:11,12 1:21. 1:25
The phrase "according to it's kind" is used over and over implying that a bird doesn't breed with a whale or dog ect..

Just said...

The bible even gives us a reasonably complete description of the "hydrologic cycle". Those darned goat herders sure were smart weren't they?
Psalms 135:7. Jeremiah 10:13 Job 36:27-29

The recircilation of water is laid out for us. The scientist didn't figure it out for a few thousand more years. Oh those silly goat herders, ya gotta love em!
Ecclesiastes 1:7 Isaiah 55:10

Finally for tonight the bible tells is of fountains (springs) coming from the depths of the oceans. Only in recent times have scientist "discovered" this one. But all along it was written in the pages of "a goat herders fairy tale". Ain't that just cool?
Genesis 7:11 Job 38:16

Now grab the book, do your research and get at me with your question on the above material.
Goat herders..........gotta love em!!!

Peace, Me

Just said...

Please attack the material, not the spelling. I was being attacked by 7yr old and a puppy durring my presentation!

Admin said...

Just, I don't know about the others, but I stopped reading your posts days ago. I see them coming in, but haven't bothered to read them. You've demonstrated that you have nothing useful to say, that you can't back up anything you believe in, and that you are ignorant about basic terminology and rules required to even have such a debate. Good day to you.

Admin said...

And I think I can speak for the others when I say that you are now merely an object of ridicule here. That's the stance I took after you revealed your ark beliefs.

FYI, if there was an ark and a worldwide flood, we'd expect to see evidence such as geographic evidence of a worldwide flood, a radiative pattern of species diversity from a central point on the planet (such as what we see for diversity of coral species radiating from the Coral Triangle), and genetic evidence indicating extreme bottlenecks in all species alive today. We see it in some species, such as the cheetah, but not others. They indicate that the cheetah was once extremely close to extinction. We are capable of detecting these things, and don't see it. If you think you know better, do some research and get it published. Until then, you're just a fool with fantasies he refuses to let go of.

That's enough of my time. Again, good day to you.

Just said...

You have read them. Especially this last one. You asked for positive proof of my belief of a higher intelligence. There it is! Shoot all of that down with your science that's was 3000 years behind the fairy tale from the goat herders.
Your science has proven the bible to be correct time and time again. If you accept the science why don't you accept the book? What I just covered is just a small sample of the things from the bible that have been proven by modern science. The same science that you are so accepting of.
Yet you refute the entire book as being a fairy tale. Advances in science are being made all the time. Advances that prove more and more of the biblical stories.
You can recite all the burden of proof stuff you want to. There is the proof! Now what? Are you going to find another rule of debate that cancelles it out? Or are you going to admit that the goat herders obviously had access to knowledge that we are still "discovering"? The mere fact that it has taken thousands of years for your science to catch up to the "goat herders fairy tale" should tell you that your science is much less intelligent that the source of biblical scripture. Even you must have a hard time denying that. I'll be waiting patiently for your words or wisdom, or lack there of. Peace,Me

Just said...

Ahh........The sweet sound of atheist silence! No rebuttal, just excuses. Call me crazy, call it an argument from ignorance, whatever you want to call it, science proved it more than 2000 years after the Jewish carpenter and his bronze age goat herders. Hmmm...... How could that be?
I know!!! They had a delorean, got the goats to pull it up to 88 mph came to the future got the science, filled up at exxon, back up to 88 mph back to the past, and wrote it all down! That explains it! Oops, I can't prove they had a delorean, so that an argument from ignorance. Dang, I failed again. Ha,ha,ha........ You fools make me laugh!
Tuck tail and run or face your own scientific facts, which is it?? I love it!! Peace,Me

Jim said...

I work all day, and I have a family. So calm the fuck down. I'm going to get to your nonsense "science" when I have some free time.

Admin said...

Is Justin whining that nobody is answering him? Does he think that his ideas deserve consideration? Is he complaining that beliefs need to be respected?

It's a common, politically-correct belief of our time that all ideas and beliefs should be respected. I couldn't disagree more. I do not respect Justin's ideas.

Anybody who believes all beliefs deserve to be respected need to do some research on David Icke. There is such a thing as an idea too ridiculous to deserve response, and Jim, you'd be charitable if you offer Justin any response at all. Let him present his ideas at a scientific conference and get laughed out of the building. Not that they'd likely even let him speak at one, because there isn't even preliminary evidence for his claims.

Admin said...

And Jim, if Justin is still attempting to present his 'science' here (still can't be fucked to read his bullshit posts any longer), a strong reminder should be sent that this blog is absolutely not the place to attempt to argue science or present new results. It in fact is cowardly to do such a thing, because it's an attempt to hide from the scrutiny of the REAL scientific community.

Jim said...

Well, with respect to the Admin, I have to take issue with Just here. And for good reason. He makes absurd claims that the Bible predates and explains scientific facts well before science has properly defined and discovered such things. So, with permission, I present my rebuttal. This will be fast, trust me.

1. The Bible does not mention dinosaurs. I will quote the passage, and prove it.

"15 "Look at Behemoth, which I made just as I made you; it eats grass like an ox. 16 Its strength is in its loins, and its power in the muscles of its belly. 17 It makes its tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are knit together. 18 Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like bars of iron. 19 "It is the first of the great acts of God-- only its Maker can approach it with the sword."

Doesn't really define a dinosaur, does it? Nope. Don't think so. Next.

2. Of course all stars are unique. I don't need a magnifying glass to prove that all grains of dirt are unique. I have no idea why this was such a big shock. Next.

3. The Bible states that "...the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The Lord of hosts is His name. "If this fixed order departs from before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever."

Now, I don't know how you claim this defines the motion of the universe, but I am pretty sure it just states that the sun goes down and night comes. I'm pretty sure a moron could detect this before the Bible. I mean, all you would have to do is literally not be blind. Also, it should be noted that claiming the seas move is a fairly observable feature of the oceans. No science equipment needed. Next.

4. Well, you need to do your homework here. The Admin never claimed that the Bible claimed the world was being held by a turtle. Here's the quote:

"This is like Ray Comfort saying that science thought Earth was held up by a turtle."

Next.

Jim said...

5.Well, the Bible fucked this one up. Jet Streams move west to east, not north and south. Do your homework. Next.

6. Well, you are right that the Bible said blood is the life of the flesh. But you missed the best part of that passage. The part about why there is blood.

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life."

Blood did not provide life (As you seem to claim), it was put there specifically for SACRIFICE. They thought the blood WAS life. Not that it PROVIDED life. Next.

7. You really need to be a scientist to know that life comes form life? I mean, really? This is an argument? Sure, biogenesis describes life starting from non-life, but your gods made life from dirt. Next.

8. I could get into this pretty deep, but I promised to be quick.

"He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses."

God brought the wind from, what was that? His fucking STOREHOUSES? Seriously? You use this as scientific proof? Next.

9. Wow. Again, a person with eyes can see that rivers empty into oceans. And that it rains. I see that it fails to mention how the water gets from the oceans to the clouds (which it fails to mention) and back to the ground. Thanks for the science lesson. Next.

10. First off, the first passage (Genesis 7:11) mentions a 600 year-old Noah. So prepare for the facts. Your Bible thought rain was caused by god opening a window (Genesis 7:11-12 - "...the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth ...") and that flood was stopped by closing the window and turning off the "fountains" (
Genesis 8:2 - "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;"). So we can't hold much stock in this claim. Why? Well, all they said was that there were springs. They didn't mention how they worked or what they were. It leads you to interpret that all they thought the "springs" were was faucets god used to fill the oceans. Which is absurd. Thanks for the non-science lesson, Bible.

So, in conclusion, I need no questions. I was faced with no scientifically viable evidence. Besides that, you were asked to provide proof of your god's existence. Not random false scientific "facts" from a boom of tales.

Admin said...

"Well, with respect to the Admin, I have to take issue with Just here."

Hey, you're entitled to be a masochist. Enjoy!

Jim said...

And, Admin. I apologize if I went out-of-bounds there. But it had to be done. He claimed we made "No rebuttal, just excuses." That statement alone makes me want to debate. How could we possibly make excuses without making a rebuttal?

Even his bragging is full of holes

Admin said...

"Well, you need to do your homework here. The Admin never claimed that the Bible claimed the world was being held by a turtle."

Thanks, Jim.

"Well, the Bible fucked this one up. Jet Streams move west to east, not north and south. Do your homework. Next."

I made a post about that. Let me find it.

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2009/08/bible-as-book-of-knowledge.html

Admin said...

"And, Admin. I apologize if I went out-of-bounds there."

What do you think I am, some kind of post-Nazi? If you want to, go for it! The PG thing was unusual, most people are welcome to post what they want when they want, as long as it isn't spam.

Jim said...

Well, it's more that I wish to show proper respect than I think you are a post-Nazi. It's your site, and we all just post here.

Admin said...

It's a public site, and I just write here :-)

I also take guest posts, if you'd like to make some for the main page.

Jim said...

I might take you up on that one day.

Admin said...

I also find it strange that people think that it would be shocking for the Bible to contain a description of at least one dinosaur species. It's as if people think the ancients never found a fossil before. The Mongolians and Chinese have known about dinosaurs for a long time. They're sitting exposed above-ground in their countries. This is possibly the origin of dragon legends. To think that no ancient Jews ever found a dinosaur fossil while digging would be a little odd.

Jim said...

Hell, not even a dinosaur bone. A bone from a mammoth, or even an elephant (assuming the person discovering the bone had never seen and elephant) would have been enough to make outrageous claims about god battling some ancient beast.

Admin said...

Jim, if you do want to write, go ahead. You have an open invitation. I'll put guest posts in another section of the sidebar indicating that I am not the author, so that I don't have to agree with everything that is written.

I used to have an arrangement with a former-Muslim-turned-atheist to write guest posts, but he turned out to not be genuine, which I discovered before he wrote his first post. He actually asked me for money. And not a small amount of money, either. Like half my annual salary kind of money.

Jim said...

That's pretty damn funny. Now that I know the score, I'll pay closer attention, and see what I can come up with. Thanks for the invite.

Admin said...

Keep in mind that the job only pays 1/4 of my annual salary. You can't ask for half.

Admin said...

The 1994 novel 'Debt of Honor' by Tom Clancy contained a scene in which a pilot crashed a commercial airliner into the US Capitol building as an act of war.

This proves either:

a) Tom Clancy participated in terrorist training camps overseas

b) he's a psychic

c) both

Admin said...

"Sure, biogenesis describes life starting from non-life..."

Abiogenesis.

Jim said...

Thank you for the correction. It was an accidental miss of the key while typing.

Jim said...

Now, I'm curious.

Just claimed after less than 24 hours that he had pretty much silenced us. And then I answered him. And now he is the one who is silenced.

I'm not here to brag, because that is not really my style. But it's curious that he would brag so readily, but he takes so long to refute my answers to his "claims".

He has the nerve to call us fools. He has the nerve to make "scientific" claims without scientific evidence. He has the nerve to come here and tell us that we haven't answered his "evidence", but he still refuses to answer the one and only question we atheists have ever asked religious people to answer.

-Where is the solid, concrete, scientific proof that any supernatural beings exist?

Admin said...

Sorry Jim, I'm going to take all of the credit for myself here. I think he's off trying to determine whether Tom Clancy is the Messiah or the Anti-Christ. But thanks for being my sidekick.

Just said...

I'm patiently gathering references to the evidence. Gotta work today, but I'll be back. Waaahahahah

Jim said...

I'm going to out this out there for you Just.

If you DO find solid, concrete, scientific proof that any supernatural beings exist, you will be the first person to ever do so.

Just keep that in mind.

Just said...

@JIM
First off, I just noticed you were a mitary man. I would personally like to thank you for your service to this great country. A man has nothing more to give for his country than his life. Considering you are atheist and serving to protect a country founded on religion says e en more about you as a person.( positive ) thank you again!

Could you please tell me how you think the writers of the bible got the following correct?

The evolutionary order. See genesis

1.
The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

2.
Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

3.
The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

4.
Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

5.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

6.
GLOBAL THREE CELL CIRCULATION
1. Tropical cell (Hadley cell) - Low latitude air moves towards the Equator and heats up.  As it heats it rises vertically and moves polewards (NORTH) in the upper atmosphere. This forms a convection cell that dominates tropical and sub-tropical climates. 
2. Midlatitude cell (Ferrel cell) - A mid-latitude mean atmospheric circulation cell for weather named by Ferrel in the 19th century. In this cell the air flows polewards (NORTH) and towards the east near the surface and towards the equator (SOUTH) and in a westerly direction at higher levels. 
3. Polar cell - Here air rises, spreads out and travels toward the poles (SOUTH). Once over the poles, the air sinks forming the polar highs. At the surface, the air spreads out from the polar highs. Surface winds in the polar cell are easterly (polar easterlies). 

Just said...

The bi le also says that man was made from the dirt of the earth. The "dirt" of the earth has been found to contain all the elements that make up the flesh of man. How could they have know this.


Element Percent of Mass[1] Mass (kg)[2]
Oxygen. 65. 43
Carbon. 18. 16
Hydrogen 10. 7
Nitrogen. 3 1.8
Calcium. 1.5. 1.0
Phosphorus. 1. 0.780
Potassium. 0.25. 0.140
Sulfur. 0.25. 0.140
Sodium. 0.15. 0.100
Chlorine. 0.15. 0.095
Magnesium. 0.05. 0.019
Iron. 0.006. 0.0042
Fluorine. 0.0037 0.0026
Zinc 0.0032 0.0023
Silicon 0.002 0.0010
Rubidium 0.00046 0.00068
Strontium 0.00046 0.00032
Bromine 0.00029. 0.00026
Lead. 0.00017 0.00012
Copper 0.0001 0.000072
Aluminium 0.000087 0.000060
Cadmium 0.000072 0.000050
Cerium 0.000040
Barium. 0.000031 0.000022
Tin. 0.000024. 0.000020
Iodine. 0.000016. 0.000020
Titanium. 0.000013. 0.000020
Boron. 0.000069. 0.000018
Selenium. 0.000019. 0.000015
Nickel. 0.000014 0.000015
Chromium. 0.0000024 0.000014
Manganese. 0.000017. 0.000012
Arsenic. 0.000026. 0.000007
Lithium. 0.0000031 0.000007
Mercury. 0.000019. 0.000006
Cesium. 0.0000021 0.000006
Molybdenum. 0.000013. 0.000005
Germanium 0.000005
Cobalt. 0.0000021 0.000003
Antimony. 0.000014 0.000002
Silver. 0.000001 0.000002
Niobium. 0.00016 0.0000015
Zirconium. 0.0006 0.000001
Lanthanum 0.0000008
Tellurium. 0.000012. 0.0000007
Gallium. 0.0000007
Yttrium. 0.0000006
Bismuth. 0.0000005
Thallium. 0.0000005
Indium. 0.0000004
Gold 0.000014 0.0000002
Scandium 0.0000002
Tantalum. 0.0000002
Vanadium. 0.000026. 0.00000011
Thorium. 0.0000001
Uranium. 0.00000013 0.0000001
Samarium 0.000000050
Tungsten. 0.000000020
Beryllium. 0.000000005 0.000000036
Radium. 0.00000000000000001

(chart above narrowed from some website)

Jim said...

Well, thank you for not answering the one question, or providing proof for the answer of the one question I asked you.

Even after you berated the Admin for what you claim was this exact action?

I quote:

"Why is it that you all skirted my questions? A question requires an answer, not another question."

I answered your claims. I will not do so again until you have done the same for me. So answer my question, and I will answer yours.


-Where is the solid, concrete, scientific proof that any supernatural beings exist?

Just said...

I offer those facts as proof of the existence of a higher intelligence. The knowledge that we are just now scientifically figuring out, was already layer out 3-4000 years ago. To me that is proof of the higher intelligence I refer to as God. No I can't show him to you! I can't take you to meet him. I can only provide the wisdom that was thousands of years ahead of it's time. How could a simple " goat herder know these things? He had no deep sea subs, no telescopes, no spectragraphs. He only had the knowledge give to him by some higher intelligence.
That is what I offer as proof, the same science that you say proves his nonexistence. What do you want, his autograph? That all I can offer is the knowledge passed on from the bible. They got alot of things almost exactly as today's science see it. That's gotta mean something to you.

Jim said...

Number one, your "facts" are little more than coincidence and premature assumptions, and people reading into things what they want. These are not scientific facts. These are claims you WANT to be scientific facts. As such, no scientist accepts them as proof of anything other than the authors of the Bible made some guesses at things.

Number two, "facts" that need to be interpreted, or that require a religious faith to accept are not valid scientific facts. In order for me to believe your facts, I must first believe in your gods. This is unacceptable. You need to do what every other person on Earth must do when providing proof of a scientific claim. Be unbiased and remain objective. You can not use your Bible to prove your beliefs. Because the Bible is a required part of your beliefs. You must seek your facts in a place that requires no prior faith or belief in the thing that is being scrutinized.

So, again. I refuse to answer your claims until you have provided sufficient scientific evidence for your claim that your gods exist.

Admin said...

I wonder if whichever school gave Justin a science degree actually bothered to teach him what constitutes evidence. Imagine trying to publish a scientific paper with this level of 'evidence'.


I also find it amazing that earlier it was all about faith, he has it, atheists don't, but now it's about evidence. If there was evidence, they wouldn't need faith, because faith is belief despite a lack of evidence. It's great when you're religious and you don't even have to be consistent. If you think you have evidence, you present it. When it gets rejected, you run and hide back behind faith, which you claim your gods want us to have, until you think you have evidence again. Rinse and repeat.

Admin said...

I also find it amazing that Justin is still showing his face (keyboard) here. I'd be too fucking embarrassed! After the argument from ignorance incident ("Don't call me ignorant!"), the jet streams, etc, I'd have gone away. This guy just can't admit when he's got nothing and is being outclassed.

Shall I provide addresses for the leading scientific journals so that he can try to publish his 'evidence'?

Here is info for publishing in the journal Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/index.html

and here is info for Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/help/index.dtl?page=authors

Feki said...

[Admin, had to edit my entry]

Jim

This dude is evidently batshit crazy. And, considering his remarks on your professional career, he is a suck up.

(Note: I trust you undertand it the same way)

I am not resorting to "name-calling" to make a point. The arguments utilized by Just are so deranged that he might be clinically insane.

Take his "dirt composition" proof of divine creation. What did he expect? that our bodies were made of something that doesn't exist on earth? big fking A, I never expected to be made out of kriptonite!

His dodging of straight answers, his mine quoting and his obvious alteration/unilateral interpretation of referenced texts that he offered as "evidence" are a sign that he can't, by any means, be reasoned with.

I've seen you patiently engage in such long discussions before (remember good ol' Eillix?) but out of camaraderie I would suggest you not to feed this troll anymore, he is just to eager to put his fundamentalist agenda forward.

I would simply insist in your request for a solid, concrete, scientific proof that any supernatural beings exist.

As for his latest comment: no, all that bullshit about "finding" science fun-facts in the bible is false, it does not mean anything and does not proof a higher intelligence.

On the contrary, average human intelligence tells you that fables are made up stories that contain fiction but not reality.

The bible says there were talking donkeys, giants, suicidal demon possessed pigs, ghost pigeons, sea monsters, talking snakes, 900 year old people, sun orbiting the earth, etc.

That's not very smart, is it? With all those animals, it looks just like a fable to me.

On the other hand, the bible does not contain algebra, basics of disease prevention, list of human rights, instructions to purify water, a list of natural antibiotics, procedures to establish a democratic government, etc.

To close with a note of hope: I attended the Rally to Restore Sanity in Washington DC, over 215,000 people were there. Many contended religious fundamentalism as much as they contended Fox News and the Tea Party.

Jim said...

Thanks for the support Feki.

I agree that his response to my profession seemed a bit like sucking up. But we must remember that religious people tend to think that what people do in their personal lives directly affects their opinions, which in turn affect whether or not they are telling the truth. Case in point, they constantly refer to Newton's personal belief in God as a reason to assume that God must exist. I feel that Just interprets my willingness to defend people's rights as proof that his beliefs are right.

But I digress.

For a self-proclaimed scientist, he does seem to be quite ignorant about what scientific proof is. Which is amazing. He claims that because certain things were in a book, it MUST be proof of god. I wonder what people will think in 2000 years when they read modern science fiction, and realize that warp-drive, teleportation, habital Moon bases, laser weapons, and sub-space communication are all common place. Will they assume that we made lucky guesses? Or will they believe that we were told by God that these things would exist in the future. Would they think that this was the only possible way we could know this stuff? Divine intervention?

Or would they simply believe in random chance and coincidence? Considering how much we're likely to get wrong. Just as the Bible got so much wrong?

Just admits it himself! He claims that he believes in the Big Bang. So that must be the Bible getting that wrong. But he claims so much random things it got right, while ignoring all it got wrong. People do not live to 900. All the evidence in the world placed life expectancy during the periods mentioned as being around 35-40. Hell of a thing to get wrong. What about having to marry the woman you rape? Do we listen to that advice? Or do we listen to the part that says cotton blends are a sin? How do we pick and choose the truth from the nonsense?

But you hit the nail on the head, Feki. Why does the Bible contain "facts" that don't help us at all? No advanced math. No disease cures. No sources of unlimited energy. No solutions to Global Warming, poverty, hunger, genocide or war. No, instead it mentions underwater tubes, animals with bronze bones, how cotton blends are evil, that blood is for sacrifice, etc.

And, Feki, you will notice that I now refuse to answer Just's claims until he sufficiently answers my question. Which I will repeat:

-Where is the solid, concrete, scientific proof that any supernatural beings exist?

Just said...

Ok butt heads.
My mention of Jims profession was out of respect! Why would i want to suck up? There is no reason, no one here effects my life one way or the other. I have sincere respect for our military. I lost two uncles to veitnam, my grandfather on my fathers side flew a B-25 bomber in WWII and received 3 purple hearts and was a highly decorated LT. Colnel.
My grandfather on my mothers side was in the navy during WWII. The one uncle I have that survived veitnam is a green beret. Some of the stories he told me made me shudder to think that people could actually do these things.
So excuse for having respect for those that protect us!!
If it weren't for people like Jim we wouldn't have the right to have this blog to start with. As for proof, see my last statement. Like I said I can't bring him to you or get an autograph. Your disbelief harms me none.

Admin said...

"Just admits it himself! He claims that he believes in the Big Bang."

The irony being that he probably believes in the Big Bang and evolution because of the overwhelming real-world evidence provided by scientists, and not because he likes the sound of it or because somebody suggested it centuries ago. And yet he fails to apply that model to his own arguments. Why can't the putz figure this out?

The guy is a fucking moron, and he's too stupid to know it. He should pray for his god to give him a clue.

"Why do people laugh at creationists? Only creationists don't know why."

Just said...

@admin
Save your trash talk. You're nothing more than a pulsating hemaroid on the bung hole of human existance.
You have to be the most miserable person. Being you must be hell. I find you quite amusing. Especially since you quit reading my post days ago. You are so full of feces I bet your eyes are brown. It is so easy to drag idiots like you along for the ride. You are clueless and will never realize it.
Do something good with your life, become a speed bump!

Jim said...

Two more posts by Just, and zero attempt to answer my question.

Feki said...

"You are so full of feces I bet your eyes are brown."

Well, time to add coprophilia to the list of mental illnesses of this poor delusional schmuck.

Jim, that's exactly what I meant by "suck up". Thanks.

And thus far, there's none of that solid, concrete, scientific proof that any supernatural beings exist...

Admin said...

*choking back tears* "The invisible man is real, I know he is! He's real, he's real, he's real, and he loves me! He made everything! I don't need any evidence, because I know he's real!" *sob*

Grow up, you fucking moron! You weak, deluded fool! Learn to stand on your own fucking 2 feet, learn to live your own life, to think for yourself and to have enough thought to make your own rules! You're a fucking adult! Admit that you have no evidence for this claim, or go the fuck away!

Just said...

Psychology 101 day 1.
Those with low self-esteem tend to belittle and berate those that they feel inferior to therefore giving themselves a false feeling or superiority. They find their own faults in others and point them out in an attempt to quell their own inferior feelings. They tend to underestimate the intelligence of other while overestimating their own. This inner conflict often stems from ones lack of feelings of self worth. Attacks on someone else's intelligence is often a ploy to cover the fact that the attacker feels less intelligent than those they attack.

Sound lime someone you know??

I have already explained what I consider the proof of the existence of a higher intelligence. I can no more place said proof in your hand than you can place said proof of the "big bang" in mine. For all you know all the different forms of life that the theory of evolution presumes led to us could have been individually created. You have no PROOF ( only science that constantly changes) I have no proof ( only a book whose science has remained the same for 3000+ years). The FACT remains that there are multitudes more people that believe in a creator than there are that don't.
So go ahead and show your true colors some more. Prove to us what a big man you are, call me some more names and insult my intelligence. Just remember psychology 101.
Class dismissed. Peace, Me

Feki said...

"Remember psychology 101. Class dismissed"

hahahaha what a complete retard!

So he wasn't a fundie, nor a creationist and he "believed in the big bang"? Well, so much for his self proclaimed progressive stand. He is no better than banana man or christian poster-boy kirk cameron.

No surprise there: religious scoundrels always hide their colours until smacked hard in the face with facts and reality.

Just, you are a moron, and you belong to a psychiatric ward. Your perception of reality is so deluded you pose an actual danger to our modern society. Please do not ever approach government buildings, research facilities or abortion clinics.

"Peace". Yeah, if it wasn't for religious nutjobs like you the rest of the free thinking world would have that.

Admin said...

I actually made the mistake of reading his last post. So there are multiple reasons why somebody might belittle others. One of them could be self-esteem, but another is that the other person is actually being a fucking moron.

"And he's going to take me away to paradiseland!" *sob*

I also notice an appeal to the majority in his argument, yet another logical fallacy. I think he's going for the entire list.

But at least he admitted that he has no proof, after saying he presented what he considers to be proof. "I have already explained what I consider the proof of the existence of a higher intelligence... I have no proof ( only a book whose science has remained the same for 3000+ years)"

The fact that he thinks the book has not changed in so many years (despite all we have learned), to be a good thing, is quite shocking. He also thinks it's a good thing that it is unchanged despite having so many parts demonstrated to be ridiculous, and uses that to bolster its case. And then the fact that he called it the "science" of the book demonstrates that he truly doesn't know what science is! Thanks Just, you're demonstrating what a fucking moron you really are, for all to see! I knew he didn't know what science is!

Hey Just, does this sound "lime" somebody you know?

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2008/09/scientific-proof-vs-religious-proof.html

Admin said...

Just, you are making a positive claim about the ark and the origin of the Universe. YOU MUST PROVE IT! We don't need proof until we are ready to make our own claim! Don't you fucking get it? for the fucking love of your fucking god, what the fucking hell is wrong with you?

So go ahead, prove it and then everybody can all have a good laugh at the stupidity of the Admin! "Haha, the Admin was wrong, what a fucking dumbass!" Until then, you're a fucking loser! You haven't learned a fucking thing about burden of proof or science, have you?

Yes, each creature leading to us could have been specially created, creating the illusion of evolution. But that would leave evidence such as ERV's (fucking look it up) and human chromosome #2 (argh... look it up) looking a little strange! It means that even with overwhelming evidence in nature and none for magic fairies, you will continue to believe in magic fairies. We could also be in a computer, and none of this is real! But if I'm going to make a claim like that, I'd better prove it!

FUCK!

Admin said...

This is also the Ray Comfort model. I knew you had a lot in common with him! When the banana thing was demonstrated to be invalid because humans made modern bananas, he defaulted to "God gave humans the ability to do that."

Yes, evolution could be caused by your god. The Big Bang could be caused by your god. I might have just scratched my head because your god made me. The dog might have barked because your god made him. And I might be here telling you you're a fucking idiot because your god wants you to know! Jim and Feki were also sent here by your god. EVERYTHING was caused by your god. Even kiddie-porn.

Your entire argument is intellectually void.

Admin said...

And one last question... Do you know what an "unfalsifiable claim" is?

Admin said...

It's my website, and I can make 5 posts in a row if I want to.....

And Just, please, now that you've admitted that your only proof is your little book, please, please, please, please, GO FUCK YOURSELF! GET LOST! You're even wasting your own time here, because we will never, ever, ever, ever accept your book as proof of anything supernatural!

Just said...

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.
Sounds like the bible to me. Organized knowledge, testable explanations and predictions about our world.

I love it. You guys are so easy to manipulate.
Hey Admin, thought you stopped reading my post like 4 days ago??? JUST can't quit can ya. It's like crack, once ya get a little ya keep coming back for more. I bet you have thought more about the bible in the last week than you have in a long time. Now go ahead a dribble a little more,
I love pissing you off. He He He

Feki said...

Love to see you trying a testable explanation of Jonah's ordeal.

What about you attempt to sacrifice your only son and see if skydude sents down an angel to prevent you from doing it?

Care to produce a talking snake or a rib-woman to lecture us on the scientific accuracy of the bible?

Let's be clear: You have no solid, concrete, scientific proof that any supernatural beings exist. You cannot demonstrate anything in the babble as knowledge created by god.

Moreover,you cowardly avoid the bible atrocities (infant massacres), non-sense (adam and eve, evil cotton blends) and contempt for human rights (opression of gays and women).

The internet has coined a term for people like you:

christard: A fundamentalist christian, devout to the point of mental retardation. A non-thinking person of christian faith (as redundant as that sounds).

The long and short of it is that you suck man, big time.

He he he

Jim said...

Just, if the Bible included testable explanations and predictions about our world, then you would be able to test for gods. But you can't. Therefore, no gods.

You even admit that there is no proof that gods exist.

You've lost. You have made your claim that "I have no proof ( only a book whose science has remained the same for 3000+ years)". Well, guess what? because your book offers no proof, and fails to advance your theory, any scientist in the world would then dismiss your theory about gods as false.

And, if you want proof on the Big Bang, there are hundreds of books out there that offer all the proof we have. Look it up on the internet. I've said it before, the Big Bang is the single best proven theory in all of science. Every fiber of your being, every photograph of space, every second we spend hurtling through an expanding universe is more proof that the Big Bang is a correct theory.

You can troll all day, but until you can provide proof of your claims (as we have all told you, this is your job, because you're making the claim), you need to stop typing, and go away.

Just said...

Theory:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific.

An unproven conjecture; An expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances; (sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena.

This is way they call it the big bang THEORY and the THEORY of evolution. These to are not facts and any scientist will tell you this. You guys believe in unproven ideas just as I do, yet some how I'm the one thats a whack job. The door swings both ways!

Jim said...

You do realize that your definitions there support our views and not yours, right?

Admin said...

Just, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEORY MEANS! You have the colloquial definition in your head, not the scientific one! You're embarrassing yourself again! Do you know there is such a thing as music theory and scuba diving theory? Is music a theory? It does not mean a guess! You are a piss-poor excuse for a science major! You are proving, over and over again, that you are ill-equipped for this discussion! Please look up what a scientific theory means! Look it up, please, please, please! I made fun of people like yourself here:

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2010/04/its-just-theory.html

Jim, Feki, do either of you find it strange that he claimed the bible has been altered over history, yet also claimed that its "science" *cough* has been unchanged for over 3,000 years? He takes whatever argument suits him at the time, with no concern at all for consistency. That's why he can take the parts he likes of science, the parts he likes of the bible, and mix them together.

Admin said...

I think it's time to ask Just which university gave him a degree in marine biology (marine biology of the bible?) and what his GPA was.

Why do people argue stuff with others who clearly know the topic better than them? Coming into this conversation, Just didn't know:

1. what a scientific theory is

2. what evidence is

3. what an argument from ignorance and false dichotomy are

4. what his responsibilities as the one making a claim are (ie. burden of proof)

the list goes on..... and yet he still comes back and acts like he DOES know what he's talking about. If this were me, I'd be SO EMBARRASSED that I'd leave in shame and kick myself over it for days. Just keeps on coming back. He literally has no shame. And the great thing is that it's on display here for all to see.

Feki said...

Admin, we've all pointed out Just's inconsistencies, side-stepping and blatant self-contradictions.

If he were a normal person, he would realize his flawed arguments, undertand he is embarrasing himself and attempt to be more cautious with his remarks. Obviously, this is not the case.

Marine biologist?

I doubt it, how could anybody earn such degree without understanding basic concepts of evolution?

I bet you he is an alumni of Kent Hovind's College for Jesus Freaks.

Just said...

I most definitely understand evolution. I believe in evolution, I have never said anything to the contrary. I also understand biogenesis. Life comes from life. Life doesn't come from a nonliving object. I understand what a scientific theory is. If it is a proven fact, it is not called a theory. Water being H20 is not a theory, it's a fact. We can produce water, again and again and again. Theories can contain facts, but are not in and of themselves factual.

Scientific evidence is the result of objective testing of a theory or hypothesis in a way that can be reproduced by others, such as in an experiment or controlled trial.

Hypothesis: an unproved theory, proposition, supposition, etc. tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or to provide a basis for further investigation, argument, etc.

According to the definitions of the above what you consider fact is not scientifically fact.

I merely state that I concur with alot of these theories but believe that they are of an intelligent design rather than random occurrences. I also believe that the bible offers alot of insight to things we are just figuring out in the last 100 or so years. I agree there is alot more to learn. And no I don't believe the bible is the exact account of everything that ever happened up untill the time of it's writing. ( see my previous " party story " analogy. Much of the original story remains intact, some has been lost, some has been added, and some has been changed. I also believe that much science has been lost, added to, changed, and some remains intact. I have already admitted I could be wrong in my beliefs. Yet none of you has done the same even though the science of nature that you strongly believe in is in a prepetual state of change. Some changes increase our current knowledge, some change it completely, and some disprove what we thought we knew.

Jim said...

the·o·ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.
contemplation or speculation.
7.
guess or conjecture.


Pay close attention to definitions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. These are the definitions that apply to science.

Definition 7 applies to everything you spout about the Bible.

Learn what the words you argue mean.

Just said...

Latest U.S. Statistics I could find.

A 2004 BBC poll showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in a god to be about 9%.[6] A 2008 Gallup poll showed that a smaller 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal spirit exists.[24] The 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism.[25] The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion. Of which, 1.6% explicitly describe themselves as atheist or agnostic, double the previous 2001 ARIS survey figure. The highest occurrence of "nones", according to the 2008 ARIS report, reside in Vermont, with 34% surveyed.[26]

I guess the vast majority of us are all wrong and 1-2% have it all figured out. Before you start, yes I looked at the rest of the world, we'll not all of it, and from what I find with the execption of Sweden, atheist are a small minority. In most cases less than 10%. 90% vs 10%.......... I'll stick with my odds.

Admin said...

"I understand what a scientific theory is. If it is a proven fact, it is not called a theory."

You most certainly do not understand what theory means. This is a joke, right? I mean, you're not actually this dumb? Why don't you head on down to your nearest university and present your definition of theory to some of the scientists there?

"I also believe that the bible offers alot of insight to things we are just figuring out in the last 100 or so years. I agree there is alot more to learn."

And yet it has provided no evidence of such a thing. Double-standard, anyone? How about learning to make testable claims with regard to the ark story? You know why it looks like it didn't take place? Do you dare make a testable claim? ("A lot" is two words, not one. They teach this in elementary school.)

"I have already admitted I could be wrong in my beliefs. Yet none of you has done the same even though the science of nature that you strongly believe in is in a prepetual state of change."

Ask me. I'll admit it. I even admitted it in my intro post to this blog, which you were supposed to read a while back, when I asked you to read the "About me" section.
We could be wrong about a lot of things. But we have some evidence, you have none. You're not at all concerned about that part. You've been properly indoctrinated to never ask for such evidence. Your independent thought processes never developed, or have shut down. It is not fucking likely that science's naturalistic worldview is going to be overturned by the supernatural. And as long as you make no testable claims, you protect yourself from having to admit it. You're wrapped in a cocoon such that you'll NEVER have to give up religion. You throw out parts of the bible at will, you make no testable claims, you don't even make yourself understand the words that science uses, like theory.

You're a clown and a moron.

Admin said...

To summarise, there are many things that religious people could show us to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. On the other hand, there is nothing we could ever show you to demonstrate that your worldview is wrong. You've designed it quite well that way, completely insulated from reality.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what you're still doing here. Unless you have evidence, fuck off. You're wasting everybody's time. What exactly is it that you want from us?

Admin said...

"Hypothesis: an unproved theory, proposition, supposition, etc. tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or to provide a basis for further investigation, argument, etc.

According to the definitions of the above what you consider fact is not scientifically fact."


What the hell is this? How does the definition of hypothesis undermine us in any way? You still don't get it.

Admin said...

Feki, Jim, I'm pretty sick of this incompetent moron. Nothing we write is going to get through, even if it's as simple as the definition of a word.

Just, please do us all a favour and fuck off from this blog. Call The Atheist Experience show this Sunday. They'd love to talk to you and will do an excellent job of making you look dumb. You'd be entertaining a much larger group of atheists that way. Too bad you probably don't have the balls. If you need the number, look it up.

Jim said...

I just have to add something here.

I've seen a lot of religious people claim that they MUST be right because there are more people who believe, compared to people who don't. I just want to know what the hell they think this proves?

Am I supposed to only drink Coke now, because it has a bigger market share and more drinkers than Pepsi?

Am I supposed to only listen to Lady Gaga now, because she is the current most popular singer?

Should I delete all the songs on my iTunes that were never number one hits?

Should I become Chinese, because they are the single most populous country?

Should I eat rice because it is the most popular food?

Or should I look at the facts (or lack, thereof), and make up my own fucking mind? If your arguments consist of, "Well, my god is more popular!", you need to go away. You have been defeated, and are now scraping the bottom of your barrel.

And, I can't believe I'm going to quote Hitler here (by the way, he was a Christian too), but this seems to be the best argument for the popularity of your gods I can offer without taking forever. He does a great job at summing up my arguments in a sort of ironic way.

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."
Adolf Hitler

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
Adolf Hitler

Admin said...

Jim, a comment like that can be more easily countered by pointing out that the large majority of people on Earth do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, or to point out that Just's particular combination of beliefs (evolution AND Noah's ark) are not accepted by even 1% of the population (probably).

So if the large majority do not think Jesus was divine and resurrected, then we atheists are on the right side? It's a stupid argument, and it's why it's a logical fallacy. Unacceptable in debate.

I'm also smarter than the vast majority of people (IQ in top 1%), so that could be why they believe and I don't.

Just said...

Jim
Tha Hitler stuff was a bad analogy. The masses of the world didn't believe in his ideas. That's why he was toppled. I find it hard to believe that none Of you see any of the bibles explanations way ahead of their time.
1 the order of evolution
2 a great flood. We do find marine fossil
On the top of even everest.
3 idea of quarenteen for those who are sick
4 idea of cleaning ones self in running water.
5 fountains on the bottom of the oceans at anyone
When it would have been impossible to
explore it. We have still only explored less
Than 10% of it.
6 mountians and valley's in the Depths of the
Oceans.
7 the idea of elemental molecules.
8 the earth suspended from nothing.
9 global air circulation( not just the jet stream)
10 the idea that life comes from it's own kind. Sure we have made some advances in genetics. But we have never been able to breed a cow with a millipede to
Make a whole new species.

Yea there are also inaccuracies, but
There are many in the theory of evolution.
I will sugest some or those later today.

Admin said...

I can't believe I referred to this as a 'debate' earlier. It is a slaughter. This putz went from claiming he has proof, to claiming he doesn't but trying to convince us that we believe in unfounded things too, to appeal to the majority. What a fucking joke. He's losing ground rapidly, but refuses to admit it.

Appeal to the majority, yet another logical fallacy. And it can just be re-worded so that he is in the tiny minority with his beliefs. And yet he claims to be going with the odds by believing what the majority does. What did I say before about his independent thinking processes never developing? Completely unacceptable, but would we expect anything different from this ignorant jackass at this point?

Just, can go with the majority (a rapidly decreasing majority in educated countries), and I'll go with the evidence.

Admin said...

And could centuries of killing people who say they don't believe have any part in why most of the world believes now? They'll still to this day execute people in some countries of the world for lack of belief. Science doesn't have to threaten people with execution if they don't believe. That's one reason we know it is right and religion is wrong. That, and the evidence. It's a poor belief indeed that must threaten deadly violence to convince people.

Jim said...

Just, you really need to read what I write, and understand the context of what I write. My quotes from Hitler work perfectly. Yes, Hitler didn't spread his message to the world, but that had nothing to do with it. The point (as I'm sure everyone else saw), was that religion (propaganda) need only accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

Do you understand? I'm not referencing Hitler's worldviews and ideas. Hell, neither is Hitler in that quote. What's being said is that all you have to do to get your message across is dumb it down so that the least intelligent people understand what you're talking about, and then it will spread on its own.

To rephrase:

All propaganda (religion) has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent (people who won't question) of those whom it seeks to reach (people who have blind faith).

As for the second quote, Hitler was, again, not referring to his own worldviews. He was saying that if you wanted to lie to the people and have them accept it, you just had to make the lie big enough.

It's easier to get a large group of people to believe that there is an invisible man living in the clouds controlling everything than to get them to believe that cotton blends are evil.

Are you comprehending now?

And there's a reason I don't see the "bibles" (sic) explanations as being ahead of their time. Because all these ideas were not ahead of their time. People did not read the Bible and say, "Fuck! We're supposed to take the sick people AWAY from the non-sick. I thought we'd throw them in a room with each other!"

There are fossils on mountains because of tsunami's and because some mountainous regions sprang from oceans millions of years ago. Did you bother to mention that the fossils found atop mountains are hundreds of thousands to millions of years old? No. Why would you mention that? It disproves and predates the Bible's account by hundreds of thousands of years, at least.

If the Bible did contain any revolutionary scientific facts, scientists would be studying it. And, for sure, you would not be needing to convince people on a blog about it. But it doesn't. People knew that wind blew for thousands of years before the Bible. People could see that when cows mated, a fucking cow came out. I mean, holy shit, thank god the Bible was there for that one. I bet people were scared an alligator might pop out before that piece of revolutionary data was discovered.

Quit picking and choosing facts you want to believe in. No one here asked you to prove the validity of the Bible. We asked you to prove your gods exist, and you admitted you can't. You're done. You've lost. Go home.

Feki said...

Just you are embarrasing yourself even further. If that's even possible.

Jim's quoting of Hitler was not about who followed him, it was the quote itself that mattered to make a point. Did you even bothered reading the quotes? Did you understand them? And I wonder, would it have mattered to you if Jim hadn't mentioned Hitler as the author?

Really, like Admin said, what the fuck are you looking for? It is plain obvious that you are unable to follow up on a discussion and make logical statements.

Marine fossils on top of the Everest? Yes they do exist. Never heard of Pangea? tectonic plates? Cambrian period? You might find trilobites, but you don't find the fossil of a dolphin on K2!!!! Every piece of fossil and geological evidence goes to support the fact of evolution and plate tectonics. Every fossil is placed on the correct geological strata. You are cherry picking scientific facts and using them incorrectly to support your delusion. Get it: you are deluded.

And much on the contrary, there is nothing that supports a myth of universal flood. If so, please make it available to the scientific community and win yourself a Nobel prize.

As for your comment on "sticking to your odds", I encourage you to learn about Pascal's wager. You might learn a thing or two about your own hypocrasy. And why don't you convert to Islam? There's more people believing in Mohamed than in Jesus!

You theists are nothing but cowards, uncapable of confronting the human condition in a pragmatic, positive way without the aid of superstition and myths.

I pity you.

Feki said...

Your patience amazes me Jim.

Admin said...

"You're done. You've lost. Go home."

I agree. He is done. He did lose (badly). He should fuck off.

Admin said...

"There's more people believing in Mohamed than in Jesus!"

That's not true, yet. Their growth rate is larger than Christianity's, so someday it will be true.

He didn't really mention the mountain fossils, did he? Wow, he needs a geology lesson, too. I personally think that fossils in mountains are the #1 reason why so many cultures have a flood story. They were attempting to explain something they couldn't possibly have understood.

An we have an announcement, ladies and gentlemen! Odds of the existence of things are now calculated by asking the population what they think. Evidence is no longer needed to prove existence!

Each time this guy writes, my opinion of him drops. What an embarrassment.

Just said...

Admin said...
I'm done with this conversation. That ark thing was just too much. It's a waste of my time.

If Jim, Feki, or Daniel or anybody else wants to take over, be my guest. But I suspect it would be a waste of your time, too.
Oct 27, 2010 6:29:00 AM


And I think I can speak for the others when I say that you are now merely an object of ridicule here. That's the stance I took after you revealed your ark beliefs.

FYI, if there was an ark and a worldwide flood, we'd expect to see evidence such as geographic evidence of a worldwide flood, a radiative pattern of species diversity from a central point on the planet (such as what we see for diversity of coral species radiating from the Coral Triangle), and genetic evidence indicating extreme bottlenecks in all species alive today. We see it in some species, such as the cheetah, but not others. They indicate that the cheetah was once extremely close to extinction. We are capable of detecting these things, and don't see it. If you think you know better, do some research and get it published. Until then, you're just a fool with fantasies he refuses to let go of.

That's enough of my time. Again, good day to you.

Oct 29, 2010 12:04:00 PM

Yet here we are on the 3rd of November and I still get a response.

Feki said...

Admin, you are right, I had to check the fact on wikipedia.

Although there are more muslims than catholics, all christian denominations currently outnumber muslims. Looking at the trends, it is likely this 'majority' will reverse over a few years.

Anyway, putting sanity aside and going by what the majority thinks/wishes, then I should look forwards to having random encounters with:

The Tooth Fairy
Santa Claus
Mr. Spock
Spiderman
Ganesh
The Boogeyman
Elvis Prestley
Sirens
Doctor Who
The Flying Spaguetti Monster
etc
etc
etc

am I right Just?

:)

Just said...

I dont feel like going back to the exact quotes but just so you know: Biogenisis

(1) The process in which life forms arise from similar life forms.

(2) It asserts that living things can only be produced by another living thing, and not by a non-living thing.

Compliments of: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Biogenesis

Also, Admin, you seem to think that the bible only said Noah was to take two of each animal.
This is an argument OF not from ignorance.

As for the evidence of a world wide flood.
Look up fossil records from the top of mount Everest.
I believe you will find reference to marine invertebrates.
I dont think they strolled up the beach and climbed a mountain!! Jim, the tsunami thing would be good if we had evidence of a 30,000+ ft tsunami. Also I believe if you will do a little research you will find that there are other plant and animal fossils found along with the marine invertebrates. This indicates a sudden flood of biblical proportions( no matter the cause ) and is a widely accepted understanding among the science community.

Feki said...
Your patience amazes me Jim.

Nov 5, 2010 1:44:00 AM

This shows class as well, something the rest of you should take note of!! He doesn't feel the need to name call or belittle others. Apparently he has a much higher self-esteem than others on this blog. A man sure of himself and his strengths, not a weak little child that has to resort to childish behavior we he doesn't get some o e to fall online with him!! Thank you Jim for being a bit more mature than others.
Once one retreats to slander and name calling they are showing their true weaknesses and the recigonition of their own faults.

Jim said...

Fossil records on mountains. There are a couple explanations.

1. Most of the present day Earth's surface was underwater at some point, and has since risen due to plate tectonics.

2. A large tsunami caused by a asteroid or comet deposited fossils across mountain ranges worldwide.

3. The invisible man upstairs decided to punish the people he made by flooding the entire world.

Now, let's explore how valid each argument is, using evidence and proof. We'll discard all evidence that is unsubstantiated in the scientific community, no matter how prevalent it is in folklore or religious texts.

1. Ophiolte suites. This is where a former section of the seafloor is raised by plate tectonics, and leaving the exposed area above the sea level, in many cases, these former seabeds will be found in mountainous regions.

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

2. The Shiva Crater (as an example). Large asteroids or comets impacting the seafloor can and will send out massive tsunamis miles high (well taller than 30,000 feet) racing around the world, and possibly hundreds of miles inland. These tsunamis will contain animal life and fossils, depositing them in areas well inland.

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

Note, there are many undersea craters that could contribute to fossil records being found in mountainous regions, far from oceans.

3. Well, there is absolutely no scientific proof for this one. So we must disregard this as a possibility.

Just said...

Respectfully Jim, I said whatever the cause, there is evidence of global flooding of biblical proportions.

A large asteroid, or a large volcanic eruption could have both " broken apart the fountains of the deep and opened the windows of heaven", leading to global climate change,causing the polar ice caps to melt at least some in the process, all of which is shown in the scientific record as well. This as well as 2 of your points are all possible exinations. Again I submit that in many instances, the bible supports the science and vice versa.

Feki said...

Just, there was no biblical flood. Again, you are cherry picking facts to support your delusion. And you continue to suck up. How pathetic

I've been a consultant/auditor in the climate change industry for 5 years, so listen:

There isn't enough water in the polar caps nor in the atmosphere to flood the earth. Less an 8,000 meter flood to cover the Himalayas. Worst case scenarios (global avg. temperature rising 5 degrees) show a sea level rise of 10 meters. Even if all the water vapour in our atmosphere precipitated (rain), leaving a 0% moisture content in ambient air (which would be impossible because of water saturation temp) the sea would not rise 20 meters (simply: there is not more water vapor as there is water in the ocean/ice caps). Do you really think water can simply "materialize"? And no, your imaginary friend did not brought water forward then dissapeared it.

Now, read carefully as this contains REALITY and FACTS:

Continents were once under the sea. The Earth's crust is formed by plates (remember those elementary school drawings of the Earth's core and magma etc etc). When tectonic plates collided the sea floor ended high above in what we now see as mountain ranges. Ergo, you get sea shells on the Himalayas.

Your argument is complete rubbish.

I cannot believe I have to explain this to a person who manages to utilize a computer.

Jim said...

Well said, Feki.

Just knows he's cherry picking "facts", and I suspect he's trying to find some random "fact" from his book that we can't dispute so he can use it as "proof" of supernatural beings. Even though no one ever asked him to prove his books "facts". We asked him to prove his gods exist.

Feki said...

Hey Jim,
In my opinion Just is looking for something he could use as endorsement for/approval of his fairy tales. He is attempting to reach some bizarre "compromise" between us atheists and himself so that he can immediately claim "victory" of his delusion. All he needs is that we say "ok, there is a remote possibility that a huge flood is the explanation for marine fossils in the Himalayas".

(FOR THE RECORD, I AM USING QUOTES, MEANING THAT I NEVER SAID NOR WILL SAY THAT).

He doesn't care about mixing and matching religious ideas and scientific facts. He is begging for the slightest "nod", someone to tell him he is not entirely insane because his retarded explanation for marine fossils in mount Everest could not be entirely dismissed.

Just is so stupid that he would consider such statement as a victory over atheism and direct proof of the existence of his imaginary friend.

But since that "bible fun fact" utterly and miserably failed, I wonder if he would care to put another one to the test.

Let's look at Jonah's story, which he probably considers the biblical precedent to submarines (Just, watch for sarcasm, you are so stupid you might think I share your dumb ideas about science in the bible)

Jonah's submarine:

get swallowed by a whale (or big fish, according to your fanatic interpretation)
survive inside it without being digested
get yourself vomited by said whale/fish

Holy shit, that's exactly how submarines work!!!! How could the bible predict such underwater voyages years before Julius Verne's books?

Well, let's see what else he comes up with. I am actually getting amused by his inability to feel embarrassment.

Jim said...

What about Leonardo DaVinci's model for a helicopter? Did god come down and whisper that into his ear?

You know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder what the point of all those "facts" in the Bible are there for. Just claims we've started finding evidence for the claims in the past 100 years. So that would mean that for roughly 1700-1800 years, those "facts" were completely useless. I don't think any god would be so stupid as to put these things in his holy book, and wait for a couple millennia for people to "discover" his "facts".

What it really looks like is the authors threw in some "facts" they knew could not be proven or disproved at the time, and were really hoping that no one would ever question them, and they could then use their "knowledge" as "proof" of a higher being.

What they didn't count on was how far science and technology would advance. They never thought we would be able to debunk every single "scientific" claim they ever made. Which is exactly what we are doing now.

Just happens to be one of those people who still has the blinders on, unable to see that the "facts" contained in his book are guesses made by the authors. Some guesses are better than others, but most fall apart at the tiniest observation.

Just said...

I could never be embarrassed by someone who is in every sense of the word, ignorant. Your claims against my argument, are the exact claims I use against yours.
The theory of evolution is full if gaps and holes and assumptions, yet you choose to agree with it, not believe in it, just agree.
Natural science is full of holes and assumptions. Hell, almost all science is full of holes and assumptions. We may well oneday fill the holes and confirm the assumptions.
All I'm looking for is an atheist that can admit that there is a possibility that science could be wrong. Not one thatL will say there is a God. There is no way to change the mind of someone who has faith! If I am wrong, I will never know, so it doesn't matter to me if you "believe" or not. As far as I am concerned it's your loss. If you can't see some truths and intelligence in the bible you just dont want to. Once again the bible is not a complete account of everything.
It does however contain alot of information mankind didn't figure out for thousands of years. Devout Christians knew it all along, for they believe every word of the bible.
Why is it so wrong to think that a world as wonderfully complex, beautiful, and diverse, with such tight knit rules as to keep it going for millions of years was designed to be that way?
Again feet or fake or feind or whatever you cAll yourself, remember psychology 101 and try to show a little class.

Jim said...

Why is it wrong?

There are simple explanations. I could say it is wrong to just believe because it gets us nowhere. It doesn't advance society. It doesn't advance learning. It doesn't advance anything. It provides no tangible answers to any problems. It shuns everyone who does not believe the same way. It condemns everyone who is different. It incites hate and anger.

Which leads to the complex answers. Just believing in some holy book and failing to answer life's complicated problems leads to death. Diseases used to be blamed on the devil, or people not believing in a certain religion's gods. If it weren't for scientists questioning the made-up nonsense in the Bible, human society would've fallen apart hundreds of years ago. Science would never have created any vaccines because religious leaders would tell us all to just pray, and hope for the best. And people would die in other ways. Wars are constantly fought by religious people because one side's god is better than the others. Religion has constantly been forced upon people. And people who believe in their own religions are still, to this day, slaughtered for not believing.

And your christian faith is no different. Your christian faith helped murder countless Muslims during the Crusades. They denies contraceptives to AIDS infested regions of Africa because it's "against God's will". You refuse to listen to the science that tells you that condoms will help prevent the rampant spread of life-threatening STD's.

But that's okay with you. because it's safer to believe. It's in your best interest to believe. It's in your church's best interest that you believe. The more you believe, the less you question, and the more they profit. But that's fine. You want to be christian and think you're saving your soul, go for it.

Us scientists and atheist will pick up the slack. We'll cure the diseases you refuse to accept are not the creation of your gods to punish gays. We'll solve the hunger issues that you refuse to believe aren't part of the Book of Revelations. We'll make the bullets and supply the guns and technology you use to murder people who don't believe in your made-up friend.

We'll advance society. Just like we have always done.

You sit in your church, read your Bible, and shut your fucking mouth. When you decide to contribute something meaningful, let us know. Until then, keep your hate-filled books to yourself.

Admin said...

Jim and Feki, I am most impressed with the tone your latest comments have taken. This guy's beliefs don't deserve anything resembling respect.

Just said...

Jim, you need to back the f up and check yourself! You are not speaking to a bible thumper! I do not subscribe to "organized" religion. I have not set foot in a "church" in many many years. I dont think aids was sent by God to punish gays. Where you come up with this crap is beyond me. I guess you hate all people, live by no rules, do what ever you want to others, rape pillage and plunder and have sex with animals like the stereotypical atheist. That's what the hardcore atheist do. Ever hear of the self proclaimed atheist GG Allin? If not look him up. Wiki has a page for him. I guess since he was atheist and you are atheist you must be just like him! After all aren't ALL atheist sh t eaters, self mutilators, violent, rapist, bisexual people that like to roll in their own feces? That makes about as much sense as your last post. I have said it before and I will say it again DO NOT LUMP ME IN WITH THE BIBLE THUMPERS!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not a part of the two faced go to church then go home and screw your neighbor wife Christians. I do not follow a preacher that tells me to give up my riches and humble myself while he drives back to his 6 million dollar mansion in his bentley wearing a $3,000 suit and $150,000 worth of jewelry. That last post was way beneath you Jim!! No where in any of my post have I said or even eluded to the crap you just wrote! Give me a freaking break.

Jim said...

You may not be. But too many religious people are. And that was the fucking point. I've told you this before:

Pay attention.

Jim said...

Also, you need to fucking "check yourself". You defend the book these morons preach. You follow their god. You might not attend church, but the mere fact that you agree with them on any point makes you part of the problem.

Just said...

I don't follow their God. I follow my God.
I guess since you agree with something GG Allin said that makes you part of the problem with people like him.
Give me a break Jim. You are much more intelligent than that! All Jews aren't cheap, all blacks don't steal, all rednecks don't live in doublewides. Not all people in the armed services are there because they lack direction and personal motivation. Not all of anybody is anything. I'm sure you agree with some parts of the bible. Do on to others? I guess this makes you part of the "problem" too.
Any group of people trying to enforce their beliefs on any other group will always cause problems wether christian, atheist, Muslim or Hindu. I believe in educating people in what I believe and letting them make the decision to worship or follow or move on. The way I see it if you don't want to be part of it you shouldn't be. But you should have the opportunity to make an educated decesion. I also believe in your right to teach people what you believe or ......excuse me ........agree with. If I wasn't interested I would have never stopped here. I know what those that agree with me think.
And by the way I agree with your overall statement about the fire and brimstone pseudo christians. Thats why I don't associate with them or attend their churches. Been there done that ain't goin back.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 354   Newer› Newest»