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:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 354 of 354
Jim said...

Hey, genius.

YOU'RE TRYING TO CONVERT ATHEISTS TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR BIBLE (WHICH CONTAINS THEIR GOD AND YOUR GOD) HAS PROOF OF GOD. THEREFORE, YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVERT US.

True, you may not be trying to make us christian, or whatever the fuck you want to call yourself at night to make yourself happy. But you are trying to convince us that gods exist. This is called converting people.

Your quote, "I believe in educating people in what I believe..."

Really? I don't believe in that at all. No one asked you what you believe. No one cares. I certainly don't. And no one here does. I don't believe in doing that myself. I know you're going to want to argue that that is exactly what we do, but look at the title of the blog you're on. This is a place where ATHEISTS come to discuss their shared belief. We are not trying to educate anyone about what we believe. I have never engaged in a debate where I tried to educate anyone about my beliefs. Because it is not my place. And it is wrong to try and educate someone about my personal opinion.

And I don't believe in a fucking word of that book. Not one. Cherry picking phrases like "do unto others" will not get me to agree. I believe in being nice to people out of the general well-being of myself and society. People were nice to people before your fucking book and they will be nice long after.

And whether you like it or not, you all worship the same fucking made-up friend in the sky. Just because you don't attend church or label yourself as a christian, doesn't mean anything. You believe in the god of the Bible, just as they do. The only difference is, your made-up friend in the sky apparently doesn't give a shit that you don't follow all the parts of the book that it supposedly wrote through divine intervention. Which is pretty odd. You believe that parts of the Bible prove that gods exist. But you refuse to believe that other parts are true. Well, if your fucking god wrote it, how could any of it be wrong? Was god absent on certain days? Was he out watching a football game?

It's either all right, or it's all wrong. Your fucking gods don't take breaks! They are "everywhere". It either wrote the Bible completely, or it didn't. Everything is either right, or it is all wrong.

Pick your fucking side and stand your fucking ground.

There is nothing worse than a person who spends their entire life sitting on the fence because they want to let Pascal's Wager play out.

"I know there is a substantial amount of proof saying that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang are right, but what if gods exist? I better say they do so nothing bad happens to me."

I would rather have a fundie to debate with. At least they chose a side. That at least deserves my respect.

Just said...

It's all right or it's all wrong? You just crossed the idiot line! I guess since science isn't all right it must be all wrong, atleast according to your logic or lack there of. There is no gravity, no atmosphere, no medicine,all of the field of astronomy is wrong, and we don't need oxygen. After all it's ALL right or it's ALL wrong. You can't just pick and choose!!! Get a freaking grip!! Every argument you idiots use against " Christians" can be used against atheist as well. And yes you did ask what I thought. There are a whole list of questions at the beginning of this post!!
Here's your sign!

Jim said...

I was talking about your made up book that was "written" by god.

How could gods be wrong?

How could they tell people about "mountains" on the bottom of the ocean, but fail to mention that the Earth wasn't created by him 6,000 years ago? Why would he say he created Adam and Eve, when clearly, humans evolved? Why would he make the book entirely scientifically inaccurate? Why would he let people write that some people were over 900 years old?

Seems like your "god" is pretty fucking retarded.

Or, better yet, your "god" doesn't fucking exist. That would explain, literally, everything that is wrong with your book!

And let me hand you back that fucking sign, moron. I never asked you what you thought. I didn't write the fucking blog, did I? No!

You're too fucking retarded to understand that I was not the author of the original post.

You know, this actually explains a lot! You thought I wrote the post. You got that wrong. You thought "god" wrote the Bible. You got that wrong too. You thought the science in the Bible was right. Also wrong. You think by spreading your views on people that you are not trying to convert them to your beliefs. Another wrong.

You have so far provided no correct answers to the question of whether your god exists. You have provided no proof of any supernatural beings. You have provided false proof of science in the Bible. You have misquoted the Bible. You have misquoted the Admin. You have failed to grasp simple metaphors. You have misinterpreted my posts. You have failed to understand the concept of 'converting'. You have failed to understand the definition of a scientific theory. Hell, I think you failed to even read the title of this post!

"Questions biblical creationists can't answer without making me laugh"

The Admin never said you COULDN'T answer the questions. He even admitted that anyone could. The point was that you have no proof of your ANSWERS.

I've said it before, and I'm dead-certain that I will have to say it again:

PAY ATTENTION!

Just said...

I have provided you with plenty of scientific FACTS in the bible. You choose not to recigonize then, just as you
Don't recognize all of the holes in the scientific theories you claim explains everything. It's all a double standard with you. You pick and choose which parts you want to support, then ignore the rest. Hmmm I think Ive heard that somewhere before....... Where could that have come from....... Oh yea.... YOU!! Oh yea I forgot, it's ok for you to do it, but not for me. I have a different set of rules I have to adhere to. That is such B.S.! I have NEVER said that the bible was written by God. Not once! I have maintained the whole time that it was written and rewritten by MAN! An imperfect creature, as you have so well demonstrated. Your problem is just like "admin" you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. You can't except the facts that are in the bible! Sure there is ALOT of non-factual information there too, but the science you so firmly agree with is just as full of holes. It's as constantly changing set of hypothesis and theories. And yes I do know the meaning of theory as it pertains to science, I have already provided it to you. Not my definition, but the dictionaries defenition! Sorry if you have made your own up and forgot to tell the rest of the world. Well I guess it doesn't really matter does it? If things are either all wrong or all right, then we don't even exist and haven't been having this conversation, and will never be able to, since some of the science behind evolution IS wrong. I find it hard to be this assinine, but when in Rome!!

Jim said...

Hey fucktard.

I said that the BIBLE is either all right or all wrong. Not science.

PAY ATTENTION!

And you do NOT know the definition of a scientific theory. I quote:

"If it is a proven fact, it is not called a theory"

Your words. But explain to me how the theory of internal combustion engines can be real? Do internal combustion engines exist? According to you, they can't. Because they are not a proven fact. What about music theory? Seems to me that everything I listen to on the way to work can't be music, because according to you, music is not a fact. I could go on for hours here. But I know you would never admit that you were wrong.

You do not know what a scientific theory is. Not a fucking hypothesis, a THEORY.

You have provided us with ZERO scientific facts coming from the Bible. None. Not a one. You have provided us with fairy tales and wild guesses. But nothing that holds up to repeated testing. You STILL think the flood was a real thing. Even though Feki and I have provided proof that it was not a real thing, and that it is impossible.

Where the fuck are your facts?

And what have I chose to ignore? Explain that one to me. Let me know which scientifically sound and verifiable parts of any scientific theories I choose to ignore. I'm sure your list will be quite long, so only present the basics. Go for it. I fucking dare you.

And, for your knowledge (I can't help but laugh when I read that sentence), the christian religion supports the idea that man wrote the Bible through divine intervention. Meaning, what? Oh, their fucking god told them what to write.

But you want to now claim that it was just written by man. Good for you. Although, you have already implied that it was inspired by a higher intelligence (divine intervention). I quote, again:

"I think that it shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the information in the bible was atleast (sic) inspired by a source of intelligence far greater than ours"

Well, that quote seems at odds with your last statement:

"I have NEVER said that the bible was written by God. Not once! I have maintained the whole time that it was written and rewritten by MAN! An imperfect creature..."

Seems to me like you're forgetting what you believe in. Good for you.

Now, I have PROVEN that you don't know what you're talking about. You switch your beliefs at will. You contradict yourself. You refuse to admit that you were wrong about the definition of theory. You won't address the fact that no one asked you your opinion in the first place. You still uphold disproved theories. You make absurd claims about me ignoring holes in valid scientific theories.

And you still refuse to accept the fact that I was mentioning that THE BIBLE (not everything else in existence) is either all right or all wrong. Your words: "inspired by a source of intelligence far greater than ours". If this "source" were your god (as you imply several times), than how could it be wrong? How could it have fucked up so badly?

But, you said it best yourself, "If I am wrong, I will never know".

No shit.

Feki said...

Well Just, it does not surprise me one bit that you fail to see the logical fallacy of declaring yourself as having a god that's different to the god of other christians?

I quote:

"I don't follow their God. I follow my God"

I would assume it is out of stupidity and/or infinite arrogance that you have assumed that their god is false while the one you made-up (the way you understand/imagine it) is real.

Well, fyi this shit's been going down since primitive humans tried to explain natural phenomena to themselves. That's when different tribes started inventing their own imaginary friends and discredit the rest.

It looks so simple... inventing a god. Nevertheless, your personal "religion", if it can be called that, actually borrowed quite a bit from main stream christianism. You even like pieces of their man-made holy book.

But the similarities are irrelevant because IT IS PLAIN OBVIOUS THAT FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS ARE WRONG, something both you and I agree. And their interpretation of the fable book is absolutely ridiculous, correct?

And YOU ARE RIGHT, the rest of the world, particularly us atheists who post comments on this blog are wrong.

So your god will punish us and we will never play the harp up in cloudy-land.

I am sure you feel incredibly lucky for "finding the real god" among thousands of phonies out there.


Why do we seem to bother about your delusion? Well, it so happens that just as you dismiss other gods, I dismiss all of them. I assert that your god is bullshit. And by believing in a bullshit imaginary friend you'd actually spend your life spreading a lie, at the same level of hordes of religious fanatics whose very acts are ruled by subjective interpretations of whatever their particular imaginary friend commanded them to do.

Say you don't go about blowing up abortion clinics, good for you and society!. But similarly deluded people with a bit "extra faith" will go the mile to assert their crazy beliefs, and that ranges from knocking on my fucking door every saturday, to murdering doctors, to flying planes into buildings, to waging global wars.

No, you cannot distance yourself from this looneys. You share the same insanity as a suicide bomber, whether you like it or not.

The good thing is that you are right, and that's all that matters right? Your god will open the magical gates of heaven to you and you will spent eternity in perpetual bliss while the rest of us burn forever (an inexplicable act defying all laws of thermodynamics).


The thought of other's suffering horrid torture in hell will not bother you ever, because you will be with your sadistic imaginary friend sitting on your thumbs and watching each other faces pointlessly for aeons to come.

(and of course, we atheists are soul-less monsters who eat children for breakfast).

If I were you I'd rush up to "him" and not waste more time here with already condemned people like us.

Think about it, eternal bliss and no stupid atheists!

Just said...

FEKI SAID:
I quote:
"I don't follow their God. I follow my God"

I would assume it is out of stupidity and/or infinite arrogance that you have assumed that their god is false while the one you made-up (the way you understand/imagine it) is real.

First Feki let me say thank you for finally showing some semblance of class. Second, I would like to change just a few words in your reply and see how it plays out...........

I would assume it is out of stupidity and/or infinite arrogance that you have assumed that their god is false while the assuming that the ever changing science (the way you understand/imagine it) is real.
Like I said previously, everything you say can be used as an argument against your views.

Just said...

FEKI SAID:
But the similarities are irrelevant because IT IS PLAIN OBVIOUS THAT FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS ARE WRONG, something both you and I agree. And their interpretation of the fable book is absolutely ridiculous, correct?

I won't lump all of any group together. But yes I believe that the mainstream Christian( if you can call them that)fundamentalist are bat chit crazy. I want no part of their hate filled spew, and refuse to take part in their "church".
I do NOT think that their entire interpretation of the bible is wrong. I find some of their beliefs to fall within my own and my own interpretation of the scripture.much the same as I don't disagree with ALL of your ideas. The ones that fit within my own belief system I am in complete agreance with. I do believe in evolution I just believe that we evolved from what was created. It may be hard for you to understand, just as it's hard for me to understand how you think things just fell together by "happenstance". Jim once said (may not be a direct quote) that atheist don't believe in anything. My mind can not comprehend how one can not believe in anything. In my mind if you agree with something, you believe it.

Just said...

FEKI SAID:

Say you don't go about blowing up abortion clinics, good for you and society!. But similarly deluded people with a bit "extra faith" will go the mile to assert their crazy beliefs, and that ranges from knocking on my fucking door every saturday, to murdering doctors, to flying planes into buildings, to waging global wars.

No, you cannot distance yourself from this looneys. You share the same insanity as a suicide bomber, whether you like it or not.

FEKI, the key word in that first paragraph is the word crazy.
Crazy people do crazy things wether christain, Muslim, atheist of otherwise. Insane people do insane things. One of the most peaceful people I have ever met was a Muslim. He wouldn't even let you kill a roach. To him it was one of Gods creations and deserved to live as much as anything else. According to him his beliefs were to do no harm, to respect all of gods creations. To others of his faith and according to his holy book, infidels were to be converted, enslaved, taxed or killed. There are crazies in all walks of life. Look up the self proclaimed atheist G.G. Allin. Does this idiot represent all atheist? I doubt it!!

Second part. I most definitely can distance myself from the "fundies". I am not part of them and do not share all of their beliefs. I could careless if someone is gay. I don't agree with it, but it's their body and their buisness. I don't believe in casual sex. I think it should be something more than physical, but if you don't that's your body and your business. I can see where they come from with their ideas of man and woman and their rolls in a relationship. I don't however agree! I think each party's expectations of and pledge too should be equal. I ask no more than I'm willing to give. So yes I can distance myself from the loonies!

Just said...

As far as the heaven and hell comment, to me it's like wearing a bullet proof vest to a gun fight. It's not a problem to wear it. It does no one any harm if I do wear it. It makes me feel safer. If no one is there to shoot me no problem. If someone is tho, atleast I'm a little more protected than without. I have no guarantees that I will make it to heaven,
But trying to get there doesn't take me out of my way, so why not try? As I said before, if it's all for nothing, I will never know. But if it isn't, I got it covered!

Just said...

For those of you trying to figure me out, which not even I have done yet, I guess you could see me own personal religion as a blend of Buddhism and Christianity. Maybe I'll start a new "religion". That will give you guys something else to bitch about.



Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. — Albert Einstein

If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. — Albert Einstein

Jim said...

Great, now he's starting his own religion. That's what sane people do.

Feki said...

Well Jim, Admin... we are witnessing the beginning of a brand spanking new cult, which of course supercedes all previous attempts to explain the origin of the universe (and this time it got it right!). I guess one cannot patent imaginary friends, otherwise Just would have to be paying some hefty royalties to the christian faith.

So Just, it is that simple, uh? you plagiarize some stuff, make some other shit up, declare it all holy and then force it down people's throats as the ultimate truth? I wonder why hasn't anybody else ever come up with the idea of starting their own customized religions?

Anyway, congratulations and I hope your newly imagined bullshit will be as amusing as Joseph Smith's, L. Ron Hubbard's and David Koresh's.

Out of curiosity, this "Just-ism" seems to ignore the whole contradiction between omnibenevolence and everlasting torture in hell. Why's that? Is it not classy enough for your pimped out imaginary friend? Has he spoken to you recently? Are you currently building an ark?

I figure it is matter of time before you declare yourself the Messiah and speak in tongues, or whatever it is that your imaginary friend will command you to do.

Your mental disorders are not getting any better, please try and get help now.

Just said...

Feki said:

So Just, it is that simple, uh? you plagiarize some stuff, make some other shit up, declare it all holy and then force it down people's throats as the ultimate truth? I wonder why hasn't anybody else ever come up with the idea of starting their own customized religions?

Isn't that what they all are? I gonna start my own. I like the term you coined. Justism. Sounds great. Justism. I'll be justian. I'll take all the bs that you guys believe in. ....errr... .agree with and all the bs that they believe in, get rid if all the crap and go with what's left!! That will work great. I'll attract all those consused people hanging out in the middle, the one that can't give up their faith but believe...ummm......agree with the science. Tugging will only be 10% with 5% going to further science and 5% going to the church of Justism. We'll go to church on wednsdays so we can break the week up a little, and instead of drinking wine we'll do a shot of Yeager, instead if eating crackers we'll just do another shot of Yeager. We'll teach love, peace, tolerance, and acceptance of others. Heck, you guys can even come. No Yeager without tything tho. We will figure out how to make the science work with our spiritual beliefs. It won't be about "the God" it will be about your own personal God. Which ever one you choose to believe.... I mean agree with. The Bible does say thou shall put no God before me. If there was only one God there would be no need to say that right? Keel, this is coming together quite nicely. Thanks FEKI! You may have just saved the world. So........ Who's with me??

Jim said...

"We will figure out how to make the science work with our spiritual beliefs."

There's your fucking problem, right there. The point we've been trying to make. You're trying to bend science to make your Bible work. What you should be doing is trying to see how the Bible fits with science.

Here's a hint: None of your Bible's fairy tales fit with science. Not your flood, not your "winds", not you dates, not your "dinosaurs", an not your gods or carpenters.

Go create your own religion, and keep believing that your imaginary friend is real.

By the way, I'm going to be waiting for you to tell me which parts of scientifically sound and proven theories I "pick and choose.. [to] support" and which parts I choose to "ignore".

I bet that will be an amazing explanation. Never mind the fact that all you do is pick and choose what you want to believe.

And, Feki, I think he has actually gone retarded. He thinks you weren't being serious.

Just said...

I'm not bending your science to fit the bible, I'm bending the bible to fit with your science. Haven't you been paying attention?!? I'll say it r-e-a-l s-l-o-w......... I......a-g-r-e-e w-i-t-h........t-h-e.......s-c-i-e-n-c-e. Sorry guys I only speak English. I can only say it in one language. I believe in evolution, just( there's that word again) have a different idea of where it started. ( and yes Jim, there are alot of gaps and assumptions in the theory of evolution) if you need me to explain some to you I will be happy to do so. I thought you were a big boy and had already done the research before you decided to agree with it. Even Darwin had his doubts.
Jim, if you don't think any of the bible fits with science or vice versa then you are quite ignorant about one or the other or maybe both. You should join my new church, we'll teach you about both and how they work together. Just don't forget the 10% and your shot glass.

Jim said...

You told me I ignore parts of scientific theories.

I quote:

"It's all a double standard with you. You pick and choose which parts you want to support, then ignore the rest."

And YOU said you were going to bend science to fit your religion.

I quote:

"We will figure out how to make the science work with our spiritual beliefs."

And you clearly don't agree with the science. Which is the whole point of this argument.

You think there was a world-wide flood. The science (As Feki and I proved. Feki did a great job, by the way.) Says it would be impossible.

You think there are supernatural beings. The science says this is not true.

You think the universe was created by an intelligent being. The science says this is impossible.

You think your Bible was inspired by a higher intelligence. The science says no such thing exists.

The Theory of Evolution says one thing, but you don't believe that either. Even though you have no qualifications to make that determination.

You say:

"I......a-g-r-e-e w-i-t-h........t-h-e.......s-c-i-e-n-c-e."

And then contradict yourself immediately.

"I believe in evolution, just have a different idea of where it started."

So you are more qualified than the thousands of evolutionary experts? Perhaps you should be in charge. Show them your Bible, I'm sure they'll ignore all the concrete evidence that supports their claims once you waive your book around.

And, if you want to bend the Bible to our science, you have to disregard 99% of that book. Especially the parts about god, Jesus, Moses, Genesis, Revelations, Noah, the Flood, immaculate conception, angels, heaven, hell, the devil, divine intervention, and pretty much everything else that remotely deals with any of the above.

Which leaves, what?

Feki said...

Just, I am glad you have figured it all out, branded it and managed to have one convert already: you. That's more Jagger for you.

As for your "bible science", I am really looking forwards to seeing you on the evening news discussing the unified law of magical evolution. And the Flood Axiom. And, as Bill Maher calls it, the Tuna Spa. I personally want to know more about Tuna Spa and how exactly you summon the Tuna and how you tell him to let you out.

But you know what? I am quite certain I won't get to see you on TV unless you decide to go all Waco along with your multiple wifes and kids.

Seriously, we have all said this before: no self respecting researcher will ever consider the bible as remotely possessing a single piece of scientific knowledge.

What you are doing is no different to duct taping the gospels to a pocket calculator then claiming Jesus invented calculus.

That's how much you suck!

But whatever, the first amendment grants you the right to be absolutely insane and have as many imaginary friends as you want. Until that changes you are also allowed to profit from other ignorant bastards who fall for your religious bullshit.

So there, are we good? ready to move on and share the world the ontological answers of a mere marine biologist?

Please do so and leave this space for other conflicted "prophets".

Jim, I think we have another satisfied customer. Have you notice how they all end up outlining their own ideal religion? Eillix, Abdullah, some PG dude...

Admin said...

"Have you notice how they all end up outlining their own ideal religion? Eillix, Abdullah, some PG dude... "

PG went on an anti-homosexual rant when he left:

"The only reason you are an atheist is because it allows you to get buttfucked without feeling guilty..

Fuck off you asshole faggot!"

Just said...

Your forggetting about all the holes is the sciences that have yet to fill. Science has a long way to go. What if the science proves one day the there is an intelligent design?
Ever heard of Depak Chopra? He has some intresting questions about evolution, science and creation. Not one sided at all. But I find his ideas very interesting.

I have already pointed alot of science facts found In the bible before science discovered them. You guy just( there's that word) choose to ignore them, or make up your own excuse why it isn't science. You are so stuck on your own ideas that you push away anything that does t fit your mold.
( that sounds fimiar doesn't it)
This guy is a world renowned scientist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/evolution-reigns-but-darw_b_309586.html

Just said...

Borrowed from Darwiniana:

To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane.It's high time to rescue "intelligent design" from the politics of religion. There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward.If anyone here is interested in placing this debate on a higher plane than us-versus-them, I think the main issues are these:

Just said...

1. How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps that no "missing link" can fill. The most glaring is the leap by which inorganic molecules turned into DNA. For billions of years after the Big Bang, no other molecule replicated itself. No other molecule was remotely as complicated. No other molecule has the capacity to string billions of pieces of information that remain self-sustaining despite countless transformations into all the life forms that DNA has produced.2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations -- those that lead to new species -- and so few negative ones? Random chance should produce useless mutations thousands of times more often than positive ones.3. How does evolution know where to stop? The pressure to evolve is constant; therefore it is hard to understand why evolution isn't a constant. Yet sharks and turtles and insects have been around for hundreds of millions of years without apparent evolution except to diversify among their kind. These species stopped in place while others, notably hominids, kept evolving with tremendous speed, even though our primate ancestors didn't have to. The many species of monkeys which persist in original form tell us that human evolution, like the shark's, could have ended. Why didn't it?

Just said...

4. Evolutionary biology is stuck with regard to simultaneous mutations. One kind of primordial skin cell, for example, mutated into scales, fur, and feathers. These are hugely different adaptations, and each is tremendously complex. How could one kind of cell take three different routes purely at random?5. If design doesn't imply intelligence, why are we so intelligent? The human body is composed of cells that evolved from one-celled blue-green algae, yet that algae is still around. Why did DNA pursue the path of greater and greater intelligence when it could have perfectly survived in one-celled plants and animals, as in fact it did?6. Why do forms replicate themselves without apparent need? The helix or spiral shape found in the shell of the chambered nautilus, the center of sunflowers, spiral galaxies, and DNA itself seems to be such a replication. It is mathematically elegant and appears to be a design that was suited for hundreds of totally unrelated functions in nature.7. What happens when simple molecules come into contact with life? Oxygen is a simple molecule in the atmosphere, but once it enters our lungs, it becomes part of the cellular machinery, and far from wandering about randomly, it precisely joins itself with other simple molecules, and together they perform cellular tasks, such as protein-building, whose precision is millions of times greater than anything else seen in nature. If the oxygen doesn't change physically -- and it doesn't -- what invisible change causes it to acquire intelligence the instant it contacts life?

Just said...

8. How can whole systems appear all at once? The leap from reptile to bird is proven by the fossil record. Yet this apparent step in evolution has many simultaneous parts. It would seem that Nature, to our embarrassment, simply struck upon a good idea, not a simple mutation. If you look at how a bird is constructed, with hollow bones, toes elongated into wing bones, feet adapted to clutching branches instead of running, etc., none of the mutations by themselves give an advantage to survival, but taken altogether, they are a brilliant creative leap. Nature takes such leaps all the time, and our attempt to reduce them to bits of a jigsaw puzzle that just happened to fall into place to form a beautifully designed picture seems faulty on the face of it. Why do we insist that we are allowed to have brilliant ideas while Nature isn't?9. Darwin's iron law was that evolution is linked to survival, but it was long ago pointed out that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology. Some mutations survive, and therefore we call them fittest. Yet there is no obvious reason why the dodo, kiwi, and other flightless birds are more fit; they just survived for a while. DNA itself isn't fit at all; unlike a molecule of iron or hydrogen, DNA will blow away into dust if left outside on a sunny day or if attacked by pathogens, x-rays, solar radiation, and mutations like cancer. The key to survival is more than fighting to see which organism is fittest.10. Competition itself is suspect, for we see just as many examples in Nature of cooperation. Bees cooperate, obviously, to the point that when a honey bee stings an enemy, it acts to save the whole hive. At the moment of stinging, a honeybee dies. In what way is this a survival mechanism, given that the bee doesn't survive at all? For that matter, since a mutation can only survive by breeding -- "survival" is basically a simplified term for passing along gene mutations from one generation to the next -- how did bees develop drones in the hive, that is, bees who cannot and never do have sex?11. How did symbiotic cooperation develop? Certain flowers, for example, require exactly one kind of insect to pollinate them. A flower might have a very deep calyx, or throat, for example than only an insect with a tremendously long tongue can reach. Both these adaptations are very complex, and they serve no outside use. Nature was getting along very well without this symbiosis, as evident in the thousands of flowers and insects that persist without it. So how did numerous generations pass this symbiosis along if it is so specialized?

Just said...

8. How can whole systems appear all at once? The leap from reptile to bird is proven by the fossil record. Yet this apparent step in evolution has many simultaneous parts. It would seem that Nature, to our embarrassment, simply struck upon a good idea, not a simple mutation. If you look at how a bird is constructed, with hollow bones, toes elongated into wing bones, feet adapted to clutching branches instead of running, etc., none of the mutations by themselves give an advantage to survival, but taken altogether, they are a brilliant creative leap. Nature takes such leaps all the time, and our attempt to reduce them to bits of a jigsaw puzzle that just happened to fall into place to form a beautifully designed picture seems faulty on the face of it. Why do we insist that we are allowed to have brilliant ideas while Nature isn't?9. Darwin's iron law was that evolution is linked to survival, but it was long ago pointed out that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology. Some mutations survive, and therefore we call them fittest. Yet there is no obvious reason why the dodo, kiwi, and other flightless birds are more fit; they just survived for a while. DNA itself isn't fit at all; unlike a molecule of iron or hydrogen, DNA will blow away into dust if left outside on a sunny day or if attacked by pathogens, x-rays, solar radiation, and mutations like cancer. The key to survival is more than fighting to see which organism is fittest.

Just said...

10. Competition itself is suspect, for we see just as many examples in Nature of cooperation. Bees cooperate, obviously, to the point that when a honey bee stings an enemy, it acts to save the whole hive. At the moment of stinging, a honeybee dies. In what way is this a survival mechanism, given that the bee doesn't survive at all? For that matter, since a mutation can only survive by breeding -- "survival" is basically a simplified term for passing along gene mutations from one generation to the next -- how did bees develop drones in the hive, that is, bees who cannot and never do have sex?11. How did symbiotic cooperation develop? Certain flowers, for example, require exactly one kind of insect to pollinate them. A flower might have a very deep calyx, or throat, for example than only an insect with a tremendously long tongue can reach. Both these adaptations are very complex, and they serve no outside use. Nature was getting along very well without this symbiosis, as evident in the thousands of flowers and insects that persist without it. So how did numerous generations pass this symbiosis along if it is so specialized?

Just said...

12. Finally, why are life forms beautiful? Beauty is everywhere in Nature, yet it serves no obvious purpose. Once a bird of paradise has evolved its incredibly gorgeous plumage, we can say that it is useful to attract mates. But doesn't it also attract predators, for we simultaneously say that camouflaged creatures like the chameleon survive by not being conspicuous. In other words, exact opposites are rationalized by the same logic. This is no logic at all. Non-beautiful creatures have survived for millions of years, so have gorgeous ones. The notion that this is random seems weak on the face of it.I don't know who will bother to read all these points, which I have had to truncate. But if you think the answers are in safe hands among the ranks of evolutionary biologists, think again. No credible scientific theory has answered these dilemmas, and progress is being discouraged, I imagine, thanks to fundamentalist Christians. By hijacking the whole notion of intelligent design, they have tarred genuine scientific issues with the stain of religious prejudice.

Jim said...

I stopped when you brought up the hurricane in a junk yard thing.

You are seriously not using some other person's argument as your own here? Especially one the atheists favorite arguments to trash?

You know you've lost when you resort to that crap.

Besides, I've shown the math of how "random" it is for DNA to form. It's not that improbable. Give it up.

Just said...

Sorry to bust your bubble military genius. If you look at the top of the first post it says borrowed from the Darwiniana website. Not my ideas. Did you read the Chopra link? Didn't think so. You pick only one point out of more than 10 to refute the whole thing? Come on even you can surely do better than that!!

Church is coming up in two days, got us a doublewide on a dirt road in east Alabama. Plenty of parking for your pinto. We'll be having a pot lunch(no... Not that kinda pot!) so bring a covered dish. Can't be slamming shots on an empty stomach!

Feki said...

No, not the Nature's Beauty argument again!!!

Dude, seriously, that's #3 in the list of lamest arguments for "creators" ever (#1 and #2 being "god made us because it loves us" and "things don't make themselves").

I thought you were on your way to build a tree house for yourself and your imaginary friend. What happened? Did you bump into "scientist" Deepak Chopra and decided to plagiarize some of his crap as well? The Deepak Chopra who is subject to strong criticism by Time Magazine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra#Criticism. The Deepak Chopra who admits he makes stuff up while interviewed by Richard Dawkins? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017#

Just because some guy who mixed and matched physics with mystical claims can sell thousands of self help book doesn't mean he's got it right. It's called marketing and works very well along with people's ignorance. Like yours.

Listen, we can go at mythbusting your bullshit all day long but in the end nothing will change the fact that you are crazy, like the people who blow themselves up because their god wants them to.

So, feel free to fuck up yourlife chasing your personal hallucination and having pot lunches with cardboard cut outs of the 7th Heaven cast. It is your right, as it is mine to expose the lies and fallacies of religions.

Please don't worry about scientific progress because that's in good atheist hands. (Remember that next time you go to the doctor, use your cellphone or hop on an airplane)

Jim, Admin, have a good day.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I had to intrude in the discussion.

Most of the items Just brings up are explained in the "The Selfish Gene".

You can go back at it now.

Cheers!

Jim said...

Apparently your grammatical comprehension skills are about as good as your scientific skills. Re-read what I wrote, moron.

I was surprised that you WEREN'T using someone's argument as your own.

Again:

PAY ATTENTION.

Admin said...

"Your forggetting about all the holes is the sciences that have yet to fill. Science has a long way to go. What if the science proves one day the there is an intelligent design?"

Argument from ignorance. You didn't learn a fucking thing. You are impervious to reason and to learning.

I read your points #1, #2 and #3 before I gave up, and besides the major flaws in your understanding of evolution, A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T F-R-O-M I-G-N-O-R-A-N-C-E!

"My name is Just. I'm a fucking moron who has terrible misunderstandings of science. Because there are some things science can't explain, and many things that I don't realise science can already explain, I do not have to advance forward any evidence at all of my imaginary friend or of the history of the world as I see it. I don't know why they keep saying that I'm ignorant whenever I do that. I also feel no embarrassment or shame when I make a horrible mistake, and just keep coming back with more mistakes. I am debating a topic against people who clearly have a better understanding of it than I do, because they've told me lots of things I didn't know but I haven't made one single point that they didn't already know. What's that, imaginary friend? You want me to slay those who don't believe the story of Noah? You want me to slay them all for not praising you?"

Just, fuck off. Please, fuck off. You are such an embarrassment to the human species that I can no longer bear to have you around my site.

Admin said...

"Your forggetting about all the holes is the sciences that have yet to fill."

Does anybody remember several tens of posts ago, when Just claimed he wasn't using a god of the gaps argument? Here it is, in black and white, god of the gaps. The only way he could have made it clearer that he is using god of the gaps was if he actually used the word "gaps" instead of "holes". So god of the holes, whatever. BRAVO, YOU FUCKING DIMWIT!

Feki said...

Ok, so we've gone from "EVERYTHING requires a maker" to "smiling babies are proof that god exists" and the good old "1 gazillion people believe in a god, how can we all be wrong?".

Lastly, for a grand finale, we revisit "the mystery of the missing socks a.k.a the god of the gaps".

Pretty standard pleas for god's existance that implicitely fail over and over.

Admin, for this instances a FAQ could be very useful.

:)

Admin said...

"Admin, for this instances a FAQ could be very useful."

Ha! Now YOU'VE written something funny, Feki! Let me tell you a little something about FAQs. Fucking nobody reads them! I run another website that I do some business on, and I assure you that very few people read the FAQ (even if it's relatively short), and many people won't read it even when explicitly directed to it!

Admin said...

To complete that thought.... the qualities that it takes for a person to read an FAQ on their own before asking a silly questions are inversely proportional to religiosity. So to think that a fucktard like Just might read an FAQ before he comments is just plain ridiculous.

Jim said...

Hell, Just couldn't be fucked to read the entire title of the original post before responding. I still don't think he realizes that we know people CAN answer the questions. But he doesn't realize that they can't provide scientifically sound answers.

Just said...

Well e x c u s e M e MR Pissy Pants(admin)! I thought you stopped reading my post over a week ago?? You've been sneaking down to the basement and reading them again haven't you?? It ok. I understand. It's like crack to a crackwhore. You just gotta get more.
I see that while I was busy all day out at the double wide yall done gone and got all werked up. Y'all just( there it is again) dont do ya? Intelligent design is obvious everywhere! Well not everywhere.... I mean it's not very well displayed here. Y'all are more like a display of the missing links science can't find, guess they never looked here. Everything tangible in our entire understanding of anything has a single common denominator. Complex order. It exist to the point we can use this single dicovery to uncover and predict future ones. This should tell most intelligent people that there is an ORDER or design. Not a random mish mash of unordered events, but a ordered design. It's found in all things we know. Without it the big bang theory hasn't a chance, no physics, no geology, no science. Order is in everything and everywhere. Not disorder or randomness, but order. Order doesn't happen out of randomness, they are exact opposites. This order is what leads most to believe in an intelligent design. Enough of the serious stuff. Someone needs to bring a roll of ducktape to church on wednsday, we gots a hole in the roof, and bugs is gettin in. Also if ya got a extree fan round the house please bring it in. Oh yea, I hate gettin up early so services will start about 2:30 pm. Don't worry bout ya bible, we gone writ us a newun.

Jim said...

There it is!

Intelligent design!

HAHAHAHA!!!!

Wow, that is the tops. No randomness? This goes to show how little you know about science. Go down to the sub-atomic levels (you know, the levels where everything, EVERYTHING, begins), and you will see randomness unlike any other. Electron orbits, quantum foam, particles literally vanishing and reappearing, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the scattering of stars and galaxies in the universe, etc.

Randomness is common everywhere. EVERYWHERE.

In fact, there is so much randomness, it is probably the most common principle of quantum mechanics (you know, the laws that define everything). Which is why, and PAY ATTENTION, we haven't solved all the laws of physics. If everything had a perfect order, all we would have to do is follow the bread crumbs to the beginning.

You are truly a moron.

Wow.

Just said...

Some quotes from well known evolutionists :
"it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed."
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.

" one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."
Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78.

"It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations."
Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157.

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."
N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.

Just said...

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.

"Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions."
Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

Just said...

Jim, you need to stick to digging latrines and foxholes.
Let's take a look at what a scientific fact is. This is taken from wiki.
Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method. Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome. In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.
What this tell one is that sciences are based on order. If things happen at random then there would be no way for different scientist to preform the same experiments and get the same results. Therefore if science is indeed factual, it is based on order. It's a really simple concept Jim.

Just said...

Quantum foam is a theory Jim not fact. In fact it needs
other theories still in the formulation process to support it.
Namely the theory of quantum gravity. Hate to break it to you but according to NASA: observations of radiation from nearby quasars by have placed strong limits on the possible violations of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity implied by the existence of quantum foam.
So this is still a theory in it's infancy and not looking too strong currently.
Even this theory depends on virtual particles behaving in a certain repeatable manner. Or in an ordered way.

Jim said...

Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to quantum mechanics.

There is randomness everywhere. You know it, and so do I. Human interactions are random. Bumping into a person on the street is a random event. Getting hit by a car is a random event. Cutting your finger on paper is a random event. Are you suggesting that humans do not exist because our actions are random?

By the way, scientists can perform repeatable tests on a large group of random events, because these events form probabilities. If I view a certain set of random events for long enough, there is a certain probability that they will act a certain way. This is a testable and sound way to scientifically very facts. In fact, these events are governed by the Laws of Probability.

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

In fact, this clearly contradicts your absurd claim that "Order doesn't happen out of randomness".

Not all science is based on perfect order. Math is. Biology is not. Physics is, quantum physics is not.

And PAY ATTENTION to the things you quote.

"...no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome."

You know what that means? It does not mean that everyone HAS to have the same outcome. It means that in order for the test to be verified, the outcomes have to adhere to one another, and the probability of a certain outcome is predictable.

For instance: I get water balloon and drop it. I notice and record a splash-pattern. I base a probable size of my splash-pattern based on size of balloon, weight of balloon, amount of water in the balloon, and height dropped. This becomes my prediction. 100 more individuals drop balloons of the exact standards. Their splash patterns WHILE NOT IDENTICAL mach my predictions. Thus, we have arrived at a scientifically tested and verified outcome based on random splash-patterns and probability. In no way did any scientist receive an exact same pattern. In fact, that would be mathematically impossible.

But you said, "If things happen at random then there would be no way for different scientist to preform the same experiments and get the same results."

But how did I arrive at the same results of my splash-pattern size if all the splash-patterns were random? According to you, this is impossible.

Therefore, we must disregard all scientific facts that are based on probability. Airplanes can no longer fly. Cars can no longer move. Humans can no longer interact. Wind can no longer blow. Snowflakes can no longer form. In fact, there can be no weather at all. Better yet, any science that is not based purely on math can not exist. Why? Because EVERYTHING in the universe is based on probability. EVERYTHING.

LITERALLY EVERYTHING.

Outside of math, probability rules. In fact, according to the laws of physics and the laws of special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity), there is nothing preventing an apple sitting on my desk to disappear and reappear on the other side. Nothing prevents this. The probability is astronomically low that this will happen, but it is not impossible. This happens because of random events that occur at the quantum level. Although, I am sure that if I try to explain this to you, you will ignore all the scientific facts involved.

Just said...

DE  Dt  ³  h / 4 p            Dx  Dp  ³  h / 4 p

Jim I assume that you recognize the above math.
In ORDER for these to exist. There would have to be an ORDER of things that take place. With out ORDER mathematics wouldn't exist.

Just said...

Jim,Jim,Jim. This is the reply to your water balloon/ apple on the table post.
First, if there were no order involved in the water balloon scenario then the water balloon would have the same chance of breaking through the concrete as it did breaking.
Without order the splash mark would be as likely to form the shape of a question mark as it would a somewhat circular pattern.

The apple on the desk. I can see you don't understand this, but even randomness comes from order. EVERYTHING behaves according to a set of basic rules or order. Otherwise we could not explain anything, nothing would be verifiable. There would be almost no repetition in the universe, yet repetitions is everywhere, we are surrounded by it. Dig deeper Jim. It all comes down to order. Everything verifiable, all facts, theories, scientific laws,formulas, postulates, everything. It all comes down to order. Without order nothing exist. It's really quite simple.

Jim said...

Also, I should let you know the hazards of quote mining. One, a person's personal beliefs mean nothing to their work. In fact, I'll quote you here:

"Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer..."

You know what that part means? Personal opinions don't count for shit. Not a god-damn thing. Nothing. A person supports evolution, but believes in god, well, who gives a shit? The facts speak for themselves. It doesn't matter what they personally believe.

PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION TO YOUR OWN QUOTES!

Jim said...

"EVERYTHING behaves according to a set of basic rules or order. Otherwise we could not explain anything..."

You would think if this were true, you would be able to prove your gods.

Jim said...

"First, if there were no order involved in the water balloon scenario then the water balloon would have the same chance of breaking through the concrete as it did breaking.
Without order the splash mark would be as likely to form the shape of a question mark as it would a somewhat circular pattern."

Hey moron, that was the fucking point. Thanks for explaining it to yourself. There IS a chance that the splash pattern can take the shape of a question mark. It is a LOW chance, but it still exists. That's called probability.

PAY ATTENTION!

Jim said...

"DE Dt ³ h / 4 p Dx Dp ³ h / 4 p

Jim I assume that you recognize the above math.
In ORDER for these to exist. There would have to be an ORDER of things that take place. With out ORDER mathematics wouldn't exist."

Again, I said, MATH IS THE ONLY THING IN EXISTENCE THAT ADHERES TO ORDER!

PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION!

Jim said...

You said, "Everything tangible in our entire understanding of anything has a single common denominator. Complex order."

And: "Order doesn't happen out of randomness."

But apparently : "...even randomness comes from order."

How the fuck can anything be random if there is an order?

PAT ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU WRITE. YOU CONSTANTLY CONTRADICT YOURSELF.

Admin said...

Holy crap, Jim! You definitely win Atheist Propaganda's Biggest Masochist of 2010 award.

Anyway, I recently suggested Just contact the Atheist Experience, and then they post this.

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-god-is-awesome-god-whiny-little.html

It sounds like it could be our guy. They at least have a lot in common, the first 2 being arrogance and stupidity. What do you think?

Jim said...

I think it is too well-thought out to be Just.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know they just the crucifix against vampires??

Anonymous said...

Phuqn touch screen!
Does anyone know why they use the crucifix against vampires?
@" &$@sorry@€%#!

Jim said...

Who the fuck cares? They're not real.

Go to a fucking trivia site.

doGitna said...

Because vampires are aergic to bull shit!!

Passinthru said...

What do you mean they aren't real?? Vampires are real.
The U.S. Government is full of blood suckers!!!! Now the crucifix on the other hand............

Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Admin said...

The stench of failure has returned.

Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...

Admin said:
The stench of failure has returned.

Nov 10, 2010 1:13:00 PM

That happens every morning when you wake up doesn't it??you should really see a therapist about your self-esteem issues, I bet Jim and Feki would go with you. You could just( there it is again) make it a group session.

Just said...

Hey Admin, for someone that quit reading my post like .... 2 weeks ago you sure jumped right on it within 15 min. or so!
I'm flattered!

Jim said...

All you do is babble on and on and on and on and on and on...

"...science is applying the philosophy of atheism..."

Wrong. Atheism is not a philosophy.

"Atheists believe that God does not exist."

We've gone over this. We KNOW gods do not exist.

PAY ATTENTION.

"...science assumes that evolution is true."

No, it doesn't. Science has PROVEN that evolution is true. It doesn't assume.

"The way scientists interpret evidence all relies on two assumptions."

No, it doesn't. Scientific facts are based on repeated testing, and independent verification. Neither of these are assumptions.

"One could say it is science's faith in atheism that allowed it to readily accept evolution and promote Darwin's theory to the status of proven fact."

No, one couldn't. Science had a hard time accepting evolution because it conflicted with religious ideology. It was accepted as fact through repeated testing and independent verification.

"It cannot be science because science assumes that the designer does not exist."

Again, science does not assume. There is no proof, so IT MUST not exist.

Jim said...

"Because intelligent design does not assume that God does not exists, it is not science."

No, because it does not adhere to the scientific process, it is not science.

"Take the origin of life for example. Intelligent design can look at science’s inability to explain this event as evidence supporting the existence of a designer"

This is known as the "God of Gaps".

"Intelligent design can look at science’s inability to explain this event..."

It is not that science is unable to explain, it's that science has NOT YET explained.

"Many scientists are perfectly happy assuming that God does not exists, so they prefer science to intelligent design."

No. The prefer science because it is a legitimate field of study. ID is a bunch of crap.

"Most of these scientists do not voice their concerns because if they do, evolutionists will label them creationists. They will then be denied tenure, their papers will not get published, they might be fired and their research grants will probably be denied."

Because they are practicing a religious belief, and not science.

"So Darwin wins by intimidation and fear."

No, he wins by being correct.

"The darwinian fundamentalists are squashing free speech and free thoughts to assert their world view."

First off, there is no such thing as "darwinian" anything. This is a made-up term. Second, people who know and agree with evolution are not squashing anything but made-up bullshit.

"And the tragedy here is that these fundamentalists do not even understand that their unwavering believe in evolution is based on nothing more than their faith in the naturalistic axiom. "

No, we agree with evolution because it is a proven scientific fact. Period.

ID is nothing more than religion's attempt to seem legitimate. Even though all real scientists disregard it as a religious practice disguised as real science. Nothing in ID has ever been been proven to be real. There is no proof of your "Designer". There is no proof that the universe needed a designer. There is no proof that the universe needed to be created. There is no proof that there was any intelligence involved in the creation of the universe.

THERE IS NO FUCKING PROOF.

You want to make a claim that ID is legit, PROVE IT.

PROVE ANY PART OF IT. I FUCKING DARE YOU.

Just said...

Jim, you and I both know that evolution is a theory that has yet to be proved. There are alot of gaps in the theory. Never once in any experiment has a form or life sprung forward from a nonliving form, not once. Therefore biogenesis is purely a theory. Boigenisis on the other hand has been proven billions of times. Yet evolution prefers to accept the non-proven over the proved because it can't allow creation or intelligent design into the mix. True science is open minded and looks to prove how something occured. Not to guess that it's right untill it proves itself wrong. As I think you said before it's ALL RIGHT or it's ALL WRONG. I guess that doesn't apply to science huh?
If life sprung forward from some primordial ooze souldnt life abound everywhere throughout the universe. If it all happens a "random" we should see monkeys or something on the moon or mars. But we don't! Why?? It is a random event coming forth from basic elements. The same elements exist on the moon and mars. Where is the evolved life forms??? There are none!! Why??? They have had the same chances as the earth, sure different circumstances, but evolution overcomes and adapts. Where are they. The odds of earth being the only place that this ooze came to life are astronomically infinitesimal!

Just said...

Oops ... The first biogenesis was supposed to be Abiogenisis. Spell check didn't like it.

Admin said...

OK, I've had enough of this clown. I haven't been reading his posts for a while, just gaining insight into them from Jim's responses, but I think he's about done here.

Here's what's going to happen, Just. You are now being considered a troll, and trolls are not welcome here. Your 'promotion' to status of troll is based on your repeated use of the same (poor) style of arguments after you have already been informed why they are not acceptable in debate. You are going to do a homework assignment. Your next post at this site will contain the answers to your homework, and ONLY the answers to your homework. If it does not, it will be deleted. If you continue to post comments that are not the answers to your homework and ONLY the answers to your homework, I will turn on comment moderation and you will be unable to post here any longer. Please do not make me turn on comment moderation. I hate doing that. Yet it seems like the most reasonable way to deal with a troll like yourself. Either way, your days of posting garbage here are finished, at least until your homework is done.

Here is your homework:

1. Explain why it's important for any 'scientific' hypothesis to make testable claims, and how this relates to Intelligent Design and your own Noah's Ark story.

2. Explain what 'theory' means in science, and why theories are not 'promoted to facts' once enough evidence has been found. You may use music, scuba diving, economics, etc. as an analogy.

3. Explain 'god of the gaps', 'false dichotomy' and 'argument from ignorance', and why they are not to be considered evidence.

4. Explain what 'burden of proof' is, and who it rests on.

5. Tell us who is Francis Collins, and how this person relates to your claim that science suppresses religious belief through intimidation tactics, or that scientists assume atheism.

6. Explain why atheism is not a belief system.

7. What was Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District? What did it determine in regards to intelligent design as science? Who was the judge in the case, and who appointed him?

8. Lastly, is a person justified in not believing an important claim until sufficient evidence has been presented? If so, what do you desire to accomplish by repeatedly coming here without evidence?


That's it, there's your homework. Please try to complete it and/or make your exit from the site with more dignity than PG did.

Jim said...

Well, Admin, I had to retort to the stupidity of Dumbass's last post. I can't let him have the last word here, because he's a fucking moron.

Forgive me for interjecting on his homework.

"Jim, you and I both know that evolution is a theory that has yet to be proved."

Not only has it been proven, but it has been witnessed:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

"Never once in any experiment has a form or life sprung forward from a nonliving form, not once."

This is not part of the evolution theory. Pay attention.

"Yet evolution prefers to accept the non-proven over the proved because it can't allow creation or intelligent design into the mix."

What is the proved part you refer to? Surely it can't be your ID? Because none of that is accepted in any scientific community as fact.

"True science is open minded and looks to prove how something occured (sic). Not to guess that it's right untill (sic) it proves itself wrong."

You mean, like ID? No, of course not. That just keeps filling the gaps, trying to do exactly that. Guess until it is right.

"As I think you said before it's ALL RIGHT or it's ALL WRONG. I guess that doesn't apply to science huh?"

No, dipshit. It doesn't. Because I never claimed that science was inspired by gods. But it does apply to ID. And so far, NONE of it right.

Jim said...

"If life sprung forward from some primordial ooze souldnt life abound everywhere throughout the universe."

No, it shouldn't. Because life needs certain things to exist.

"If it all happens a "random" we should see monkeys or something on the moon or mars."

No, we shouldn't. Because it does not happen at random. It needs certain things to exist.

"The same elements exist on the moon and mars. Where is (sic) the evolved life forms???"

No, they don't. The moon and Mars contain SOME of the same elements. But that is irrelevant. Because they do not have the proper environment to support life.

"They have had the same chances as the earth, sure different circumstances, but evolution overcomes and adapts."

Now you are clearly showcasing your lack of knowledge. You are referring to Natural Selection, not evolution.

"The odds of earth being the only place that this ooze came to life are astronomically infinitesimal!"

Now, here, you are correct. However, this argument contradicts your entire argument FOR ID. In fact, it contradicts your entire argument against evolution.

PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS. QUIT CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.

Admin said...

Jim, tell me you made that up. He didn't really argue that we should find life on the Moon, did he?

Jim said...

I never make anything up.

He was serious.

Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Admin said...

Comment moderation is now on, to protect the blog from the PAGES AND PAGES of text that Just is cutting and pasting from another website.

Moderation will be turned off when Just either goes away, or does his homework as described in my last post.

All other posters may post as normal, there will just be a delay until I can pass your comment through.

Perhaps this is also the best evidence we have that Just does not read or pay any attention to our responses. He should have known his effort was for nothing.

Jim said...

It read like he has been cutting and pasting on his last post. No way he wrote his own arguments for ID. Sounded way too much like a die-hard fundie. And we all know that Just is a die-hard moron, not fundie.

Admin said...

Just just tried to get a comment through moderation accusing me of censorship, running away, etc. If he doesn't feel that he got a fair chance to air his views in the hundred or so posts he made on this topic, well, that's his problem for not being able to get to his point quickly enough. And for the record, I don't know of too many blogs that would allow the large-scale cutting and pasting of information into their comment sections. Bring it (mostly) with your own words, or go away.

Admin said...

In addition, he did not write anything that would suggest to me that he was even aware of his homework assignment. He hasn't been paying attention to our responses.

Jim said...

Which is ironic considering how much he liked to accuse you of reading his responses, even though you weren't. He was doing just the opposite.

And I don't know the point of trying to push through the non-science of ID on an atheist blog. Does he really think he can convert us? Or is he so fucking stupid that he thinks ID will convince us?

But it doesn't surprise me that he would hide behind cutting and pasting from an ID page.

I mean, that's all ID is, cutting and pasting.

Science has yet to explain what was before the Big Bang, so ID morons cut out god, and paste him right at the beginning. Haven't located the Missing Link? Cut out and paste gods. Rinse and repeat.

Admin said...

I did read the very occasional post of his, but not enough for me to know that he accused me of actually reading them. I stopped for a few days, read a few (and confessed about it), then stopped again a few days ago. I read the opening sentence of each, to make sure that the multiple rapid-fire posts weren't repeats, because I delete repeat posts to keep the comments section clutter-free.

Jim said...

I would stop by before heading to work or bed and catch the opening sentences to his posts, and I would get so enraged by his stupidity that I would just have to respond.

I believe religion being spread is evil. And the only thing needed for evil to spread is for good men to do nothing.

Admin said...

Jim, you'll find it amusing that he's still trying to get a comment through moderation. And still no acknowledgment of his homework.

Jim said...

I find it amusing, and unsurprising. He is a moron. I bet he doesn't even realize that his posts aren't making it through.

Jim said...

Here's a link to the site Just was plagiarizing.

http://theory-of-evolution.net/intelligent-design-blog/

Admin said...

I wrote at least 2 times that he never developed any independent thinking skills. I think industrial-scale cut and pasting is pretty good evidence of that.

Admin said...

I just deleted the offending, plagiarised cut-and-paste posts.

I also came across this on the tail end of them:

"Hey Admin, for someone that quit reading my post like .... 2 weeks ago you sure jumped right on it within 15 min. or so!
I'm flattered!"

The funny (and true) part is that I was not reading the posts, just deleting the notice of comment received from my inbox. And as I know that whatever this clown writes is a failure, I made my comment about failure returning to the blog. He sure is a fucking moron. No level of being incorrect will cause any embarrassment at all in him.

Jim said...

There is being a moron, and then there is being a plagiarist.

Having your own stupid arguments is one thing, but having to be so fucking dumb as to have to STEAL someone else's dumb arguments?

Truly we now are certain of Just's mental inabilities.

Ben said...

1. - 30.

Answer = Magic

Shelby said...

I love you guys and I've only read one thing. Thank you, Stumbleupon. Always looking for ways to try and stand my ground, the constant criticism of me not being religious at all is starting to get really annoying, and just starting my second semester of college, I'd really like to gain more knowledge on this. And the comment section really helped, with Just playing the Christian. Also, the examples of logical fallacies helped, but I don't think they would know what logical fallacies are... so can't call them out.

Anonymous said...

ah, ha.

I had no clue christians used the term "bang her brains out", especially towards one's sister.
huh.

:) you go, christian.Your god is proud.

Joepiler said...

Now this was an unbelievable fun read, believe it or not but i've read it in 1 time through.

In a way i'm also glad that Just bended over backwards in every possible position, so that i everytime and from each statement that he made immediatly could read a clear and even for me easy to understand answer on all them. There were some things that i knew that werent true or even impossible, but that completely and without mistakes explaining is harder then it looks. Not for people like you ofcourse but i'm sure you know what i mean.

I also 'stumbled' here and i'm glad i have. Looking forward to reading lots more here.

I'll apologize already for the mistakes that will in my post, i'm Belgian so i only know school-english.

Anonymous said...

Wow... just... wow. I can't believe I've just spent an hour reading this entire post.
I'm just a simple carpenter, and a budding activistic atheist (after a life time sent hiding my light under a bushel) and I don't believe I've paused in my stumbling long enough to bother posting anything before, but you guys: Admin, Feki and Jim, have my respect and approbation!
The patience and forebearance you've shown is astounding. Thank you for some very lucid arguments, and helping me to crystalize my own belief structure: I now beileve that not just some, but all fundamental Christians are fucking wacked!

Thanks, and BTW, I've now got this site bookmarked for my future edification
Kind regards,
-Chris

Admin said...

Thanks to the last few commenters for the compliments and encouragement. And for those who read all of the comments, congratulations for making it through the entire thing! :-)

Anonymous said...

Comment to #19:
"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?"

In fact, ALL animals and plants are living on the photosynthesis since animals eat plants etc.

If all animals were "photosynthetic organisms", we would need LESS photosynthesis to support life as a whole.

Phil said...

Wow, what a great stumble.I will add to my favourites. There is no way Just has a marine biology degree. Or any degree. Maybe a theology one. From a very bad college... I admire your patience. I would have given up long before. With respect, Phil.

Meagan said...

Wow, i have enjoyed reading your "debate" with this just character. He calls you ignorant yet believes in his own mix of christianity and science.
Just a question for you just, what bible do you read or "study" from?
And do you understand that the bible was written by humans and since we are apparently all flawed wouldn't that make the bible flawed and incorrect? Thus false?
To believe the "science" of the bible is to say that we have stopped growing and learning. That we have learned all there is to know.
REAL science has gaps and the ability to change because we are still growing as a species!
Just to let you know the bible can't be god's words if written by human hand and if it is then why are there bibles with red words that jesus was said to have said?
Everything that Jim and the others have said (typed) against christianity can't be used against them. Theories are meant to be tested repeatably, criticized that's the whole point. You can't test something that is not real.
You are the one treating science like you see your creationists ideals, as a whole completely finished idea. You're just making it easier for them to tear it apart. Science on the other hand is flexible and still expanding. These holes you're so obsessed about are being filled by hard working scientists who are actively searching for the truth.
I am an atheist and am currently studying at university pursuing a degree in science. I am ashamed to call you a fellow scientist, you fail to see reason and continue to push your false claims when they have obviously been shown false.
I feel like I am dealing with a twihard ie a stupid fan of a fictitious book who hopes vampires and werewolves are real. Get over yourself. If you want to prove something go to a fucking lab and present your (testable) findings to scientists world wide. If you can show true proof than you can "save" the planet from so-called "sin". Till then fuck off and please don't reproduce. The world doesn't need anymore idiots roaming around.

<> said...

If no one here cares about what those of faith believe, then why have a blog about it? Seems to me that you are more of a God hater than an Atheist. Most Atheist's that I know don't care at all about what others believe and don't care about proving or disproving anything. You say that people of faith are trying to convert you however, it seems as though you yourself are trying to convert them. Sounds like you want to be a "BIG BOY" and do what ever you want, whenever you want and you don't want "MOMMY and DADDY" (God) telling you what to do.

Admin said...

<>

Yet another perfect example of, "Why don't atheists just shut up?"

"If no one here cares about what those of faith believe, then why have a blog about it?"

You've missed the most important part. I don't care what you believe as long as you keep me out of it, keep it out of my education system, keep it out of politics, out of world events, stop coming to my door to tell me about it, etc.

"Seems to me that you are more of a god hater than an Atheist."

I don't hate things that don't exist.

"Most Atheist's (sic) that I know don't care at all about what others believe and don't care about proving or disproving anything."

So what? Who do you know? Maybe if their religious friends wouldn't just tell them to shut up, they would be more vocal.

"You say that people of faith are trying to convert you however, it seems as though you yourself are trying to convert them."

When did I go to a person's door and tell them to deconvert? I write here. You got a problem with that?

"Sounds like you want to be a "BIG BOY" and do what ever you want, whenever you want and you don't want "MOMMY and DADDY" (god) telling you what to do."

I have never received any orders from a god, nor has any evidence been shown to me that they even exist. Sounds like you're a "LITTLE BOY" who needs somebody to tell you what to do because you're too weak to make your own decisions and live your own life.

Admin said...

By the way, it's great to see the last guest use so many of the oldest tricks in the book, all in one comment:

1. You just hate (my choice of) god

2. You just want to sin

3. Why don't atheists just shut up?

Anonymous said...

Just a thought.

Of course, the Bible was written by humans. Just like science textbooks are written by humans and experiments are done by humans.

Now I do not want people to misconstrue my previous comment as a firm believer in Creationism or otherwise. I just wanted to point out that perhaps the argument that because the Bible was written by humans makes it automatically false is a bit flimsy.

I was also wondering what type of Creationism you might be referring to considering there are several. That is, the Young Earth Creationism, which tends to place the Earth younger than 10,000 years old to Theistic Creation, where God as seen as a watchmaker who set everything in motion and left and to everything in between. I understand that it does not matter in terms of creationists answers commonly posed question to them make you laugh, but just for my own knowledge.

p.s. scientists seem to curse a lot.

Admin said...

"I just wanted to point out that perhaps the argument that because the Bible was written by humans makes it automatically false is a bit flimsy."

That is not my argument at all. My argument is because all of the real-world evidence points away from it, it's false. Biblical creationism is absolutely ruled-out by the evidence, from nearly all fields of natural science.

"I was also wondering what type of Creationism you might be referring to considering there are several. That is, the Young Earth Creationism, which tends to place the Earth younger than 10,000 years old to Theistic Creation, where God as seen as a watchmaker who set everything in motion and left and to everything in between."

Biblical creationism. The 6-day, anti-evolution, Noah's flood, anti-science bullshit spewed by nearly half of all Americans and majorities in many parts of the world.

"p.s. scientists seem to curse a lot."

Fuck, yeah.

Jim said...

"Of course, the Bible was written by humans. Just like science textbooks are written by humans and experiments are done by humans"

Right. Except that anyone can write a Holy Book and put whatever they want in it and claim that it is real and beyond testing.

However, when you write a book based on facts (science books, math books, etc.), anyone can test it and prove how real it is.

And even though experiments are conducted by humans, real scientific testing is done in such a way that it removes humans from the testing so that they do not interfere with the results. This is why they have controls and variables. And why they constantly test and retest everything. Even if a human interfered with the test, they would retest to remove the human factor.

The point is, humans made up the Bible and every religious text out there. They made up everything inside those books too. However, with science books, we DISCOVERED the answers and facts. Things in science books were true before we found them, and they will be true after we are gone. Your post reads like humans just made up a bunch of "facts" and threw a book together. In fact, 2+2 will always equal 4, whether or not a human writes it in a book, or an alien, or a robot, or hell, even if there is no one in existence to write a book, it will still be true.

But religion can only exist when people refuse to question their environment.

Anonymous said...

your ark ideas are fucking stupid. if u did any research before u wrote this u would know that according to the bible noah only brought 2 of every unclean animal.... pigs crows and other un-eatable animals according to jewish tradition. He than brought 7 of every other kind including cows chickens and other animals so that 5 could be eatin over the 40 days........ moron

Admin said...

Was that last comment a joke, or was it a serious attempt to answer question #3? Either way, you made me laugh, which is the point of the post. So congratulations. You think that SOLVES the problems? The way I see it, it makes it a whole lot worse.

And seriously, is that your ONLY point of contention with my entire post? If so, looks like you're not on very solid ground, my brainless fundie friend.

Anonymous said...

@Admin,

Wasn't it Abraham, a man, who had started Judaism, which led to Christianity and Islam? The thing with humans is one of our worst inventions. The invention of lying. Also, it could have easily been changed by the many generations before us. The Bible, was written by man, and could easily be false. As we see today, man is crooked and evil. For those that aren't getting what I'm saying. History tends to repeat it self, quite often.

Anonymous said...

stumbleupon rules!

Admin said...

"Please know that I totally respect your opinion, I just don't believe you're right"

Please know that I have no respect for your opinion, and I think you're a moron. You believe a fantasy, despite the evidence. It's a nice story you tell, if we ignore the factual errors. You did make me laugh, but there is no evidence for anything you say, and in fact, the evidence we have opposes what you say. I don't think you could finish the list. I dare you to attempt the advanced questions. We need a good laugh here lately.

Admin said...

I watched the video. Pretty funny that he chose Michael Behe to support his argument, as Behe does not appear to be a young-Earth creationist, but an intelligent design advocate. Also, as the bacterial flagellum was the focus of the video, perhaps our friend should go research the Dover trial, in which this argument and Behe lost, as it is not evidence of anything. It's not evidence according to science, and it isn't evidence according to a court presided over by a Christian judge, either. In fact, that judge, in his summary, accused the Behe side of repeatedly LYING to support their case.

Seeding doubt in the currently accepted theory and supporting your own are two different things, and our anonymous student friend should remember that for his studies.

Anonymous said...

The saddest part about all of this is that “Just” is making valid points with a scientific backing. He is pointing out where science and religion overlap, not blindly excluding the two based on a poor understanding of religion or science. The two go hand in hand, but FAR too many people are too blind to see it. I swear, atheists can be far more closed-minded and ignorant than their counterparts sometimes... the majority of this post just reveals what most people know about fervent, uncompromising atheists. They are hypocrites and hateful. -agnostic

Jim said...

Why should an atheist compromise? Would you ask a religious person to compromise and say that their religion is true, but no gods exist? And how should an atheist compromise? By agreeing that gods exist? That would defeat the point of being an atheist. How about atheists say there are no gods, but a supernatural being wrote the Bible? No, that would be the same...

Let me know what you come up with.

Jim said...

Also, I hope you are not an agnostic. They are almost worse than the devout religious. At least the devout have taken a stand and picked a side. Agnostics just sit on the fence, playing Pascal's Wager. Let me fill you in on a little something I learned back when I believed in gods.

If you only believe in god because you are afraid of what happens if you are wrong, it's the same as not believing in them. Because god requires faith. Not people playing the odds.

Anonymous said...

Yes, these questions will be answered with a supernatural bias, I suppose. I am a Christian! When evolutionists answer questions like these, they answer them with an evolutionist bias!
Okay, just to pick a random few questions:
"Does Your Holy Book account for things like quantum mechanics? Why doesn't it seem to contain much useful knowledge at all?"
No, the bible does not account for Quantum Mechanics, however God created people for the sole purpose of his glorification. He created us to be SMART, and equipped us with the guidelines and knowledge to figure out Quantum Mechanics, and Science, and Art, and Culture, and soooo many other things! He wanted us to uncover all these amazing things so we can glorify him for creating them!
The Bible has all the useful knowledge you need! God gave us a set of guidelines (Ever read the ten commandments? Or any scripture in Psalms or Proverbs? Or in the Bible at all? *awkward silence*). He wants us to use these guidelines in everything we do and we will succeed in whatever we do as long as we follow him and what we do glorifies him!

Next Question:
Why is the fossil record arranged in such a way as to suggest evolution?
ITS NOT! Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Which macro evolutionists apparently can't explain....hmm....

Why can we see objects that are billions of light years away?
We can see them because God wants us to see them! Once again, he equipped us with the knowledge to uncover his glory and wonder through the wonderful, AMAZING creations he's made, like comets, and supernovas, and suns, and galaxies, and things we haven't even found yet!

If my 'word choice' or whatever that you might ridicule me for because its not up to scientific par bothers you, Im sorry, but Im only fourteen, and I think my answers are pretty good for that. I don't need to be educated in a college to know what the truth in the bible says.

Admin said...

Well, you did it! You made me laugh! Let me count the ways:

"When evolutionists answer questions like these, they answer them with an evolutionist bias!"

You mean a bias towards the truth and the evidence?

"He created us to be SMART, and equipped us with the guidelines and knowledge to figure out Quantum Mechanics, and Science, and Art, and Culture, and soooo many other things! He wanted us to uncover all these amazing things so we can glorify him for creating them!"

Really? We were created SMART? Then why are so many of us so utterly stupid? You think the average Joe Redneck in the trailer in the US has any idea about quantum mechanics? Why didn't your god allow Joe Redneck to glorify it? Are you even familiar with the famous quote that anybody who thinks they understand quantum mechanics, doesn't?

"God gave us a set of guidelines (Ever read the ten commandments? Or any scripture in Psalms or Proverbs? Or in the Bible at all? *awkward silence*)."

Yes, awkward silence. In my 13+ years of Catholic schooling and my years doing this site, I have never once opened a bible.

"Why is the fossil record arranged in such a way as to suggest evolution?
ITS NOT! Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? Which macro evolutionists apparently can't explain....hmm...."

Yes, I've heard of the Cambrian explosion. No, it is not unexplainable and no, it does not rule out evolution. Did you learn this from a scientist or a preacher? It DOES however, rule out biblical creationism. There weren't any horses there.

"Why can we see objects that are billions of light years away?
We can see them because God wants us to see them!"

Not only did you make me laugh, but you don't even seem to understand the critical significance of this question, and how it also rules out young-Earth creationism.

"If my 'word choice' or whatever that you might ridicule me for because its not up to scientific par bothers you, Im sorry, but Im only fourteen"

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm going to go back and clean up my post a bit. Seriously, I was swearing at you and everything. I'll be nicer.

"and I think my answers are pretty good for that."

Ummm.... no. Sorry, but they're not.

"I don't need to be educated in a college to know what the truth in the bible says."

Don't tell all of the bible universities that one.

Young one, I encourage you to read and to learn about what science is and what the evidence says about the origins of the Universe and life.

Admin said...

Also, all of your answers are merely assertions. You are unable to back up anything that you write. All of your answers boil down to, "Yahweh did it so we can glorify".

Where is the evidence of any this?

Jim said...

I would argue that any being that creates any other being simply so the original can use the creations to "glorify" himself is a being not worth the glory.

Do you think god sat around on a cloud in heaven and thought, "Well, shit. No one is around to glorify me through all eternity. This needs to stop."? So then god created humans, murdered a shit-ton of them, and finally sent himself down to die for himself, only to teach the rest of his creations that we should spend eternity glorifying him?

I could think of no greater waste of my time and effort than to endlessly praise some invisible, uncaring deity with massive ego issues.

Anonymous said...

6. Last I checked, animals are part of the world. Therefore, wouldn't they be affected in a "fallen world?" ... Just a thought.

Admin said...

So you believe it's fair to punish animals for the supposed misdeeds of humans? If you do, that's fine, but I think it's horribly immoral and any being that did that would be evil.

Anonymous said...

FUCK THIS BULLSHIT!!!! WHAT DO U BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD WAS CREATED BY RANDOM CHANCE?!

Admin said...

Are you sure you don't want to try answering the questions? I could use the laughs.

Jim said...

Random chance or supernatural invisible man that has never been proven to exist?

Considering the fact that random chance has created a lot of stuff and has been proven to have occurred before, as opposed to the invisible man in the sky who has never been proven to exist, let alone accomplish anything, I will take random chance all day, every day.

Gbenga Ajayi said...

Whao... cool but am not against anyone's belief but as a Christian i have some Question for most especially the Admin and as many that don't believe in any deity, don't just go about making fond of peoples believes and make mockery of them, your beliefs are your acceptance so stick to it and if you wake up tomorrow and belief in Buddhism good for you no problem exercise your gift of freewill. Coherent responses are welcome in the comments column below.

Twenty questions atheists struggle to answer

1.What caused the universe to exist?

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?

3.Why is the universe rational?

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?

5.Where did the genetic code come from?

6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?

7.How do we account for the origin of 116 distinct language families?

8.Why did cities suddenly appear all over the world between 3,000 and 1,000BC?

9.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?

10.How do we account for self-awareness?

11.How is free will possible in a material universe?

12.How do we account for conscience?

13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?

14.Why does suffering matter?

15.Why do human beings matter?

16.Why care about justice?

17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?

18.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?

19.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?

20.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church

Gbenga Ajayi said...

Am not against Atheism but it like you guys love hassling Christians mostly... so i dare you ADMIN to post dis because you ignore my first post...you are a coward if you don't ... and nothing but a stupid fu...ck...ing sadist

ATHEIST PLS ANSWER THESE.

1.What caused the universe to exist?

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?

3.Why is the universe rational?

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?

5.Where did the genetic code come from?

6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?

7.How do we account for the origin of 116 distinct language families?

8.Why did cities suddenly appear all over the world between 3,000 and 1,000BC?

9.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?

10.How do we account for self-awareness?

11.How is free will possible in a material universe?

12.How do we account for conscience?

13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?

14.Why does suffering matter?

15.Why do human beings matter?

16.Why care about justice?

17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?

18.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?

19.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?

20.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the churc

Admin said...

Wow, fuck you dude! You call me a coward because I didn't approve your comment within a few hours? Do you think I sit here 24 hours a day, just waiting for somebody to post so I can approve it? I'M ON VACATION YOU FUCKING TWIT! I was out walking with the elephants in South Africa! And even if I wasn't, chewing somebody out after a few hours is bullshit. Do you know why comment moderation is on? Because of spammers and trolls. I'll make you a deal. You get rid of spammers and trolls from the internet, and I'll turn off moderation.

Now, you're upset that we make fun of your beliefs? I don't give a shit! Try not having such funny beliefs. Your beliefs make no sense, have no evidence to support them, and they're stupid.

Admin said...

Your answers:

1-20: I don't know.

Now what are you going to do? 50 bucks says you're about to make an argument from ignorance.

Admin said...

It's been 15 minutes and you haven't responded yet. You are clearly:

- a ooward
- a sadist
- an idiot
- a liar
- a whore
- a child-molesting priest

Jim said...

Mind if I play?

"Whao... cool but am not against anyone's belief but as a Christian i have some Question for most especially the Admin and as many that don't believe in any deity, don't just go about making fond of peoples believes and make mockery of them, your beliefs are your acceptance so stick to it and if you wake up tomorrow and belief in Buddhism good for you no problem exercise your gift of freewill. Coherent responses are welcome in the comments column below."


First, I will answer in proper English, I suggest you do the same.


"Twenty questions atheists struggle to answer

1.What caused the universe to exist?

The Big Bang.

2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?

The universe isn't fine-tuned. I don't know where you got that idea.

3.Why is the universe rational?

It isn't.

4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?

Genetic evolution.

5.Where did the genetic code come from?

Genetic evolution.

6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?

Evolution. (I am beginning to think this is going to be a common answer.)

7.How do we account for the origin of 116 distinct language families?

Basically evolution. But mostly from the dispersal and common evolution of homo-sapiens across the globe.

8.Why did cities suddenly appear all over the world between 3,000 and 1,000BC?

Suddenly? No. Try 10,000 years ago. And it wasn't "suddenly." Take an anthropology class.

9.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?

Evolution.

10.How do we account for self-awareness?

Evolution.

11.How is free will possible in a material universe?

Because there is no deity controlling us. (How is free will possible in a universe controlled by a deity that knows everything that ever has or ever will happen?)

12.How do we account for conscience?

Evolution.

13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?

What is good for society.

14.Why does suffering matter?

Because it isn't good for society.

15.Why do human beings matter?

We don't.

16.Why care about justice?

Good for society.

17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?

Again, take an anthropology class. I posted how religion formed in another post, but basically people were to ignorant to understand things, and religion helped people in power control the masses.

18.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?

Prove that it does.

19.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?

It doesn't.

20.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church?

No proof of an empty tomb or resurrection outside of a single book written by the people who would most benefit from its publication. Show me any other book written that confirms these actions. I'm also assuming you mean the Catholic Church, so I'll tell you that it grew because it meant power for people in charge. It is no coincidence that the Vatican is the richest country per capita in the world. Or holds the most power over the most people in the most countries. POWER. Nothing more.

Admin said...

Jim, no making fun of people's English, unless they're native speakers. I think it's pretty clear that the commenter wasn't a native speaker, and his English is probably much better than our whatever-his-language-is is.

Anyway, I found the last question particularly strange. What accounts for the growth of the Church? My first response is to ask how he would account for the fact that Islam is now the world's fastest-growing religion. But a better answer would be that a group of ignorant people who wanted power FORCED people all around the world, BY THREAT OF TORTURE AND DEATH to believe! Then they took children away form their parents and put them into special schools, where they would "beat the Indian out of them" and teach them Christianity. Then they mandated that followers of their religion must have as many children as possible, discouraging the use of birth control through threats of eternal torture by a supernatural pain-bringer. Children almost universally adopt the religion of their parents, very few will stray any further than to change denominations of the same religion. Take all of these together and BAM, you've got a huge Church.

None of this is anything to be proud of.

Jim said...

Oh, I wasn't mocking his English, rather this remark: "Coherent responses are welcome in the comments column below."

I wonder how he would explain that atheism is growing faster than most, if not all, religions? It would seem the more science reveals about the universe, the more atheists are produced. Logic, it seems, is finally winning.

I also have to remark on this beautiful sentence:

"Twenty questions atheists struggle to answer"

I didn't struggle at all. Especially since most could be answered with the same answer. It seems our friend here has no idea how evolution (A concept accepted by the Catholic Church) works.

Admin said...

We can't give him too much credit, because I'm pretty sure he's a young-Earth creationist. The comment about cities springing up is a give-away.

Jim said...

Agreed. I'd love to hear how these people explain fossils and evidence...

You know what? Never mind. I have had my fill of creationist bullshit in my life.

Anonymous said...

I am truly sorry that you feel this way about God. Most of your questions seem to be specifically targeted toward answers that would not "satisfy" you. Honestly, it is sad to see you reply with such inappropriate language just to make your point. You seem to ask these questions not to get answers, but rather to mock those who try to explain to you about the Bible. I hope this anger that you have towards God will be replaced with an overwhelming love for Him and that you will one day be content that even though you won't have all the answers, God does. This probably sounds ridiculous to your ears but there is a God, and He loves you. He's waiting for you. I have a purpose in life and hope for a life way better than my imagination...Heaven. Obviously, this blog was posted years ago, and so I pray that your worldview and opinions have changed. If not, I will pray for you. You'll find all the answers that you'll ever need in the arms of a loving God, who sent His Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Admin said...

"You seem to ask these questions not to get answers, but rather to mock those who try to explain to you about the Bible."

Pretty much, yeah.

"Obviously, this blog was posted years ago, and so I pray that your worldview and opinions have changed."

No, not at all.

"If not, I will pray for you."

And I'll think for you. It's sad to see somebody not use their brain.

Jim said...

"I will pray for you."

No. That's highly insulting.

"You'll find all the answers that you'll ever need in the arms of a loving God, who sent His Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ."

Prove this happened, and I'll see things your way.

Anonymous said...

The Flood has NOTHING to do with Creation. Creation is different than the Bible in general.

Jim said...

"The Flood has NOTHING to do with Creation. Creation is different than the Bible in general."

They're both stupid fucking ideas, so they have that in common.

thekauffdog said...

Why are you asking questions you don't WANT the answer for? Your the kind of person that asks if smoking pot is a sin even though they have no intention of quitting even if it is. I don't have to even be a Christian to realize it. I mean, you can't even explain space, or where the matter for the big bang came from, believe it happened over 11 billion years ago, which isn't observable. Way to much of an effort simply to try and decieve yourself. I you wanted to know the answers, it would be seen in your questions. Case and point, if there were scientific answers, you would move to another topic. Can't even have a real debate with a closed minded person like you because your too busy thinking every creationist grew up on little house, and the waltons, with a Billy Graham spoon in their mouth. What do you say to the ones that believed the way you do, and then converted?

Jim said...

Wow. That's some grammar in that comment. Let's do this.

"Why are you asking questions you don't WANT the answer for?"

Thanks for providing some answers, by the way. Great job, there.

"Your the kind of person that asks if smoking pot is a sin even though they have no intention of quitting even if it is."

Probably because sins are bullshit meant to keep populations in line and have no actual effect on anything whatsoever.

"I don't have to even be a Christian to realize it. I mean, you can't even explain space, or where the matter for the big bang came from, believe it happened over 11 billion years ago, which isn't observable."

So many problems here. One, we can explain space. Read a science book, it's in there. It's fairly well known. But you want to nitpick here, so answer where your god came from and I'll be more than happy to explain where the matter for the Big Bang came from. And, when you say that something isn't "observable," you really need to pay attention to your beliefs. We know the age of the universe by the speed that the universe is expanding. If you run it in reverse, it all comes together approximately 13.7 billion years ago. But more to the point here, if you don't believe your own number of 11 billion years because it is "unobservable," then why do you believe in a supernatural being no one has ever seen? Gods are unobservable by definition.

"Way to much of an effort simply to try and decieve yourself."

Oh, the irony.

"I you wanted to know the answers, it would be seen in your questions."

What?

"Case and point, if there were scientific answers, you would move to another topic. Can't even have a real debate with a closed minded person like you because your too busy thinking every creationist grew up on little house, and the waltons, with a Billy Graham spoon in their mouth."

You won't even believe the real age of the universe because you say it is "unobservable." Like your god.

"What do you say to the ones that believed the way you do, and then converted?"

Name one.

Seriously, learn to read and write. Grammar is amazing. So is spelling.

Anonymous said...

I would love to answer question 13 for you. You stated that the government is moving along fine without our Christian belief. As you can see, America is slowly but surely derailing. We are in billions of dollars in debt, and we are not able to pay back a cent of it as it is going up. America is not prospering like we did when God was a Holy figure. So, you are wrong. America is not getting along fine. We need God again in our country.
P.S: I am 12, and I just answered your silly atheist question.

Admin said...

Yes, I'm going to pick on a 12-year old.

Alright, let's read the question again:

"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?"

First of all, kid, the world is not the USA. I know that living there you might think you're the centre of everything, but you're not. I'm not American, don't live there, and I have a feeling that I'm a lot more worldly than you are, considering that I'm a very avid international traveler. The world is also a lot bigger than your country, and much of Europe, for example, has progressed greatly while religiosity continues to decrease.

Next, the question was not about whether or not the United States is doing well. I know my reading comprehension skills are better than yours, and it was about why our "understanding", meaning of the way the Universe works, has advanced so much since we developed the scientific method and chose it over religious "scholarship". And even if your country completely collapses after religiosity falls, that does not demonstrate the truth of any of the claims of your religion, especially those of Young-Earth Creationism.

And finally, if you study your civics, you may note that the United States is a secular government as defined in its Constitution. You are explicitly forbidden from making your god a "holy figure", and your laws are not based on Christianity.

And this is just a nitpick, but your country is many trillions of dollars in debt, not just billions. It's been that way for a very long time, and I do not blame your country's overspending and under-taxing on lack of belief in a deity, considering that most of your government personnel are Christian. My country is much less Christian than yours, and we do much better with our finances, thank you very much.

Was that a good response to your silly Christian rebuttal? Do you care to try any of the other questions?

Jim said...

"I am 12, and I just answered your silly atheist question."

No, you didn't, as the Admin pointed out. But that's not why I'm commenting.

No, I would like you to take a crack at question 14. Let's see you tackle that one.

Actually, you can go ahead and pick any question from 14 on and have a crack at it. The only caveat? You can't use "because god" as an answer.

MsFreethink said...

As an atheist just starting to stand up for myself in the face of fundamentalist creationist's claims/statements/judgements and attacks, I say 'thank you', for showing us how to argue with balls and begin to put the fairy stories to rest.

Jim said...

I can't speak for anyone else, but you are quite welcome. The biggest hurdle I find in fighting ignorance is finding enough people to actually fight. Most atheists I have met in person are too afraid to tell theists that they don't accept nonsense as fact. There is too much pressure in most places for some people to take a stand and defend that stand. So, carry on, MsFreethink. Carry on.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Fascinating debate....

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 354 of 354   Newer› Newest»