Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.



Monday, January 24, 2011

Sun... er MONDAY blasphemy

There you have it, all the answers you'll ever need from the Bible! It all makes perfect sense now!

Found via Pharyngula.

And a few more things I happened upon.



Blame Jess for this not being on a Sunday, she wouldn't get off the computer;)


steve said...

I will never understand why you prefer ridicule to open discussion.

I think it goes back to my basic assumption that when people go to a ballgame they root for the home team, not the team which plays better.

They really don't care if their team sucks, as long as they win.

The silly thing is when you discuss science with an evolutionist they immediately change the topic to religion or philosophy, areas they are usually woefully poor at discussing.

And why is disagreeing the same as disproving in so many evolutionists minds? Many people have objections and disagree with Beh, big woop. Disprove him if you want some street cred.

and why do anti-Christians always attack straw men?

If you want to be taken seriously why not go after the best the other side has to offer? IDists and Christian debaters take down Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. While evolutions seem to think West Borro Baptist is representational of the Christian movement.

Still it is your religion (neo-Darwinism) so I guess you can defend it anyway you want. It is just silly and ineffectual.


Brett said...

Because Steve, you never actually bring for things to discuss, you know evidence. That thing I keep asking for but you never actually deliver on? That thing you ignore and then go on about 'Christian Morals' or some other such nonsense. I provide you with evidence and you ignore it but provide nothing in return.

That fact that you can't understand why people root for the home team says a lot.

We don't change the subject, you just never answer the darn questions. You dodge and evade like a politician. You guys are the ones that change the subject, because you cant answer the actual questions.

Because Evolution is Science and science involves facts, which you can disprove or prove, not beliefs. That FACT that you STILL don't understand that, means your BELIEFS are getting in the way of any logic that involves FACTS.

There are no straw men with religion. If you disprove part of it then the rest falls apart. So if I make a joke about some silly Flood myth with no evidence that's not a straw man, that's to make a point about the absurdity of that mythology.

I have NEVER seen an ID or religious person 'take down' a scientist. They are arguing one thing and then you guys come in with some crazy moral or belief that uneducated masses eat up. Just because they refuse to actually learn anything about actual science and root for their chosen mouthpiece doesn't mean they take anyone down but the human race for peddling such inane stupidity.

West Borro is the extreme version of your chosen religion, yes, but it's only a few steps away from the evengelicals. Why go for the regular people who don't spew the hate like these guys? That's the easy why out.

And ONCE AGAIN. Evolution is a FACT. I don't believe in it. It's like gravity, it's always there it explains out world and is key to understanding our place in it.

There is no actual point arguing with you as you refuse to actually listen. I'm not the one defending my beliefs with slight of hand an lies.



Fatboy73 said...

Steve,you just said a mouthful brutha! "I think it goes back to my basic assumption that when people go to a ballgame they root for the home team, not the team which plays better.They really don't care if their team sucks, as long as they win."
That right there describes belief in a god,religion and pretty much the whole ball of wax.You guys believe your on the winning team and that you have eternity all wrapped up and in the bag,in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and complete lack of it on your part.You believe for reasons that transcend reason and logic and therefore will never be convinced otherwise.You,Brett,Me, and a lot of others,we all know this but that doesn't mean that it's not fun and stimulating to debate.
Another reason why logic will never prevail is that and religion are very much a personal,emotional thing with people and we all know emotion blows logic out the window almost every time.
2.There is money involved.(basically anyone making money from their faith)Is a snake Oil salesman going to have a moment of conscience and tell you his product is just a placebo and doesn't really do a damn thing?
Is Criss Angel going get up before one of his shows and say "You know what guys,I want you go and get a refund for your tickets,because lets be real here...I'm a sham and my show is just smoke and mirrors.
Nnnnoooooo...don't think so.

M.O.R said...

Its just not the same when its on a Monday. :(

Brett said...

LOL! I'll try to make sure I get it on Sunday this week;)



KaiserLeomon said...

Another example Brett ... The "Pentagram". It is the "Symbol of the Devil" right? WRONG!

A pentagram (πεντάγραμμος ancient Greek) is a star made up of five straight and has five points. In Portuguese, pentagram means a word with five letters. Also, in music, five parallel lines that compose the score.
Pentagram are assigned to various esoteric meanings.

Pentagram mythology

Pentagram in a synagogue.
Originally a symbol of the Roman goddess Venus was associated with various deities and worshiped by many cultures. The symbol is found in nature, the way that the planet Venus is apparent during the recall of its orbit. This is one of the most pagan symbols used in ceremonial magic as it represents the four elements (water, earth, fire and air) coordinated by the spirit and is considered a very powerful talisman.
The pentagram is also known as the symbol of infinity, it is possible to make another pentagram smaller regular pentagon in the pentagram's largest, and so on.
It has multiple symbols, always based on the number five, which expresses the union of dissimilar. Represents a fruitful union, marriage, achievement, uniting men, 3, and female, 2, symbolizing also, thus, the androgynous.

KaiserLeomon said...

French School of Kabbalah

The pentagram is a symbol often used by scholars of the French school of Kabbalah. Authors such as Eliphas Levi and Papus studied it thoroughly and established as a symbol of protection, Will and Good.

Pentagram in Mathematics

The pentagram is composed of a regular pentagon and five isosceles triangles congruous, such that the ratio between the side of the triangle and its base (side of the pentagon) is the number of gold.
The pentagram was also used as an emblem of the Pythagorean school.

Pentagram in Astronomy

Based on ancient astronomy Ptolemaic, who tried to keep the other planets orbit around the Earth, astronomers speculated last eccentric orbits for the planets and this has caused, apparently, the orbit of Venus drew a pentagram in space.

Pentagram in Religion

For pagans, each tip of the pentagram represents one of the Five Elements of Nature: Air, Fire, Water, Earth, and a spirit that all coordinates.

KaiserLeomon said...

Five Elements of Nature and the Pentagram
Currently, many use a pentagram on his neck as a symbol of pride in representing their religion and their faith, or as a protective amulet. It is important to note that this is no obligation for any religion.
Besides its primary meaning, the five elements, the pentagram also represents the human body (all 4 limbs and head). For some, the pentagram is also known as "star of the microcosm (little universe), which symbolizes the spirit dominating the magician on the matter, instincts, intelligence, mind over body.
In rituals of the Wiccan religion, besides being a symbol of the goddess, the pentagram is sometimes used as a symbol of the earth, other times to consecrate the ritual instruments, objects and amulets.
The pentagram can be made from any material (metal, wood, clay, glass, etc.). and even drawn on pieces of cloth or even the floor.

That is the Pentagram of "demonic symbol" has NOTHING! He is a religious and mystical symbol of the most reverent and that the Pagans (with the term "Pagan"does not mean "heretic", but all members of ancient religions "not Christian" as Wiccans, the Druids, Mages and , White Witch, etc.) just as the Cross for Christians is the star of David is to Jews and the waning moon is for Muslims. Yet the Catholic Church during his rise has perverted the meaning of this symbol by associating it with an entourage of "black magicians" self-styled "Satanists " who had perverted the meaning of this sacred symbol in their worship services in which it was used in reverse (upside down) saying mean the triumph of matter over spirit. Although originally the pentagram with two points up already appeared in the pre-Christian paganism, as a symbol of the Great Mother (from its resemblance to a vagina, a uterus and two fallopian tubes). Thus, the inverted pentagram has parallel meanings. But the sole purpose of the Catholic Church was to discredit the non-Catholic religions before your devotees associating their symbols with bad things to take to himself his devotees.

Brett said...

Yes Kaiser, I know about the pentacle and pentagrams. I've known several Wicca. But the fact still remains, there is no evidence to support any religions claims. You're telling me things that have basically no actual meaning except intellectual curiosity (which is fine I love learning new things) but it doesn't prove anything, it brings no evidence to validate this antiquated view that religion is true and good.



steve said...

Evolution is not a fact like gravity. I can drop a rock and see gravity work. No one has seen Darwinian evolution work. Evolution has explanatory power to describe scientific natural phenomenon, but it isn’t observable.

The strength of the Evolutionary theory progresses mainly not through proof but by constantly modifying over time its definition.

Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes over time. This is not Darwinian Evolution since no new information is created in the DNA, it is what is better known as adaptation or even simply reproduction. Evolution needs to show through modification one species turning into another. Saying a bird’s beak got longer or an existing valve in a lizard’s digestive track changed size isn’t really a step toward a whole new species.

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor, this too is a problematic use of the term “fact” because popularity is not the same as truth. There are many scientists who disagree with Darwinian Evolution but don’t have a problem with using the term for observable adaptation.

It seems like science likes to argue semantics rather than actually show proof for evolution.

But if it is true as science likes to pretend it is, that it is not only a fact from a scientific standpoint but also a “fact” as the term is used in common language then the burden of proof is upon them.

Please tell me which species was observed evolving into another species, was repeated, observed, and falsifiable?

Please show how say, chucking squirrels eventually gets wing flaps to evolve, or better yet chuck some flying squirrels and get bat wings. Hasn’t been done and can’t be done. So when the explanatory power of the theory of evolution is expanded to explain all animals having a common ancestor it comes up short.

What is the mechanism which controls, guides, and orders evolution?

Brett you say it is luck, correct? What is the evidence of luck? How do you empirically test for luck? How do you remove luck from the lab and falsify this assumption?

What is the accepted and proven method of abiogenesis? Evolution is dependant on life from non-life. Where is this proof? Please show me the fact of abiogenesis. If not you have assumed a super natural miracle before you even get started.

I know there is no current workable solution for abiogenesis. I know no Darwinian Evolution of species to species modification has been observed. I know modification of the DNA strands is not most likely going to provide a lucky beneficial trait. Luck is not an acceptable solution. These are all basic components of the Evolutionary theory.

You ever wonder why about every two or three years there is a front page news story about Evolution finally being proven true for the first time? Let that sink in. Multiple times we have Evolution being declared true, for the first time.

steve said...

Brett you offer evidence and declare it as proof. There is a major difference between evidence and proof. All of the evidence you offer for evolution fits in an ID understanding of biology. Evidence can support more than one theory. So in your head you believe you are offering concrete proof, I tend to show you how your “proof” is actually only evidence and that it better fits a scientific understanding of adaptation.

To fix this problem the term adaptation has been changed in the scientific community to “micro-evolution.” Once people accept this term science starts dropping the micro prefix and calling it evolution.

If you want to make headway offer evidence which both advances evolutionary thought, is not better understood as adaptation or simple reproduction.

I’ve offered numerous sources of proof for my faith. You have disagreed with all, but disproved none. Again, disagreeing is not the same as disproving.

But because I’m patient, and it is too cold to draw but not to type, I will try again.

At one point in history do you start having a problem with Christianity, the faith in Jesus as God? I am a Christian. Christians trace their faith back 2000 years to Jesus. Even if you do not believe in what Christianity teaches, you are familiar with the historical concept of Christianity. How do you believe from a historical standpoint the faith got started if it is not by what is recorded in the historical writings found all throughout the Middle East? If the person of Jesus did not exist, what caused the religion to come into being, grow, and change lives? What is the historical cause?

Brett said...

Yes Steve evolution is a fact, like gravity. I have pointed you repeatedly to the evidence, both fossil and biological. From speciation to DNA, that you refuse to except it because it doesn't fit with you're ideas does not mean it isn't true or a fact. We have seen new species form in the lab, in nature and we can track evolutionary changes in our very DNA. Those are facts. They have been observed and tested. PLEASE stop using the no new information lie. Because that's what it is, a lie. New genes are made, every new person, plant or animal is a NEW genome. DNA randomly changes at specific intervoles as well. ID can not explain transitional forms, from whales to humans to horses and even elephants. YOU need to actually read up on it as you seem to think that ID has answers when it doesn't it answers nothing. Let's see there are the moths, all the fruit flies and worms and bacteria.

Evolution is guided by the environment and random mutation. As I have stated over and over again.

You're lying again, scientists don't use 'micro-evolution' creationists do. I've pointed this out to you lots of times but you ignore.

Just because the news media are idiots when it comes to science doesn't mean that evolution is unproven. The fact that you seem to think that news headlines (rarely actually written by the writer of the article) are some sort of test is laughable.

I have offered you evidence but you STILL have given me nothing to support your claims of a God. Your ID has even been proven to be an illusion in a court of law. Your ID guys and there 'irreducible complexity' have been laughed out of courts and the poor diluted followers were forced to pay the tab.

My problem is that it's based on myths. If you can't understand how these religions works by a few people getting a large group to follow them and it grows and grows. People are stupid in general and they will follow just about anything if you give them a carrot ie; Heaven in this case. I can't believe you can't see how these things work. If your religion is true then how do you explain the others? People love to try and get that carrot and the beauty of it is they never have to produce it, you get it when you die! All I want is the truth, but all you offer is the lies you have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.



Brett said...

I guess, what I'm wanting is for you to use the same scrutiny that you use for other religions and apply it to yours. They have the same exact evidence that yours does, so why are they not true as well?

And if you apply your Christianity through the ages idea, it works just as well on other religions. If yours was true then the others wouldn't exist would they? If there really was something to it then EVERY one would have switched to it, but this is not the case and in fact your religion is loosing people while the Muslims are gaining, so by your logic then the Muslim faith is true and yours is false. Do you not see why that 'logic' is anything but?



rgalwaysright said...

You keep saying you have proof of evolution and that is false , no facts , in fact if a scientist is completely honest they have to admit that evolution does not exist ! Here's a little something I was reading just for you . So these scientist you believe in so much were telling of this monkey that existed 5 million years ago they gave complete detailed descriptions all the way from head to toe right on down to the teeth told what it's habbits were whether it climbed tree's and so forth this they said was the last step from monkey to man . Then I got to the end and they said well we were wrong about everything ! Imagine that a complete false story made up about something that happened 5 million yrs ago . What logic ! And another thing you really have to force that stuff on to yourself in order to believe it . Dna does not prove evolution fact !! And God is like gravity very real you can't see it yet it exists .

rgalwaysright said...

Every bit of info on evolution is micro evolution , where the genetic info is already there and everything that has evolved remains what it is a frog with longer legs remains a frog , there is no evidence at all of macro evolution which is the monkey theory! does not exist ! You say it take's millions of years , but it only take's one day for something to be born and there is a 0 % rate of anything ever having been born with new genetic information ! FACT !!!! GOD IS AWESOME !!!!

Fatboy73 said...


That's the difference between science and religion.Science never claims to have all the answers is constantly is also more than happy to say hey you know what,we were wrong about this particular theory,and based on this new evidence we found we are modifying that theory until such time as we find more evidence to prove that it is either concrete or needs to be modified again.Religion deals in absolutes,this is the way thing are period.Nobody ever tries to fix the glaring mistakes in the "word of god"...well except for
Other than that all people do is make excuses for it.And let's make this very clear.GOD IS NOT LIKE GRAVITY!obviously you can't see gravity but it's effects are very real and have been tested and proven,whereas there is not a single solitary thing you can show me to prove the existence of god,and personal experiences do not count as they are completely subjective.

Brett said...


Educate yourself:

I keep saying it's a fact because science has proven it over and over again. A few fringe crackpots have yet to provide ANY evidence against it. ANY. PERIOD.

You have NO idea what you are talking about. We are not MONKEYS, WE ARE APES. Do we need to play the song again? If this simple fact eludes you there is no point in talking to you.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MACRO EVOLUTION. These are just names creationists have made up to mimic science. Why is this so bloody hard for you creationists to understand? The rest of you comment is so... wrong I'm not even going to bother with it... my head hurts from the ignorance today... wow, just wow.

Thanks for trying Fatboy, but I think reason is just not something they even want to attempt. It's something that you have to learn how to do and if you want to understand science you need to understand reason and logic first.



steve said...


These new species which were observed evolving from one animal into a completely different animal, what are they?

Brett also, please define the difference between adaptation, genetic reproduction, and evolution.

Maybe you just aren't catching what I'm saying.

Adaptation is a species adapting to its environment without a change in the DNA body plan. Examples: a longer beak, a darker color. No new genetic information is added to the body plan. It allows for variables.

Genetic Reproduction is two animals of the same species mating and having the same species. It is passing on the same genetic information. Example: my kids!

Neither genetic reproduction or adaptation is an example of evolution, body plans are not altered, no new genetic information is added.

Darwinian evolution is a whole new species. Example: ? Peppered moths? nope still a moth. Hawthorne flies? nope still a fly. New dog breeds? not even close, still a dog.

steve said...

And as for me rooting for the home team, I guess I didn't address that and there are some newbies who haven't followed my decade long discussion with Brett.

I don't have a home team. Evolution could be shown to be true and my faith would be intact. If God designed a universe which allows for evolution, cool. Evolution does not disprove God. That is why it is so weird when scientists start making philosophical claims which seem to believe evolution kills faith. I don't get it.

My team is truth. I'm curious how it all got started and how it works. I entered into this debate because once I became a real Christian at around the age of 20 I figured all the Creation stories as they were taught at Sunday School might be myths and science had disproven them. I really imagined I would become an evolutionary theist.

I started to read guys like Ghould and I became fascinated by how little is actually known, the multiple out and out frauds like the peppered moth, Hoeckle’s embryos, the Pilt Down man, the Miller-Ulrey experiment, etc. It wasn’t like these were examples modified with new data; they were known lies used to support the evolutionary theory and taught to me in high school. It is like a bad Dan Brown novel, but true.

The more I read the more I saw the way evolution is treated by scientists is like a sacred cow. They break their own rules, change definitions, and operate like a political activist group to advance the theory.

So my team is the unknown truth. I want the whole truth but it ain't available yet. I just hate the shenanigans on both sides Creationists and Evolutionists who try to over state their cases.

steve said...

And I did a little research on the marriage letter.

Here is the marriage policy The Village Church has in place:

If a member of a church breaks a policy and refuses to talk to the church they need to be disciplined. Otherwise the church is not upholding the biblical morals the other members have agreed on. The church is supposed to police itself so hypocrisy is nipped and restoration can happen.

If someone wants to sleep around, break up a family, divorce for unbliblical reasons, etc and act like the church should be cool with that, there are problems.

I think the "Hand them over to Satan" phrase it what has everyone's panties in a bunch.

Fatboy73 said...

I myself don't have a problem with that particular situation.If you choose to be a part of that congregation you have to live within the confines of it's rules and precepts plain and simple.And it's pretty obvious(at least to me)that when they said "hand you over to satan" they simply meant that person was being excommunicated from the church thus it's protection and being "sent out into the world"where in the eyes of the church satan is in their eyes,they are indeed handing over this person to satan.even though that thought process is screwed up,if you play in their field you have to play by their rules. Unless they decide that their field includes people not belonging to that church as well,then of course they can go suck an egg.

rgalwaysright said...

Unlike a dictionary God does not change . I just want you to know my mind has evolved since I found this web site . Of course your going to ignore the ignorance of scientist telling you that they are making up fairytales ! you want me to research stuff so I go to scientist .com and read the 1st thing I find and you won't acknowledge how screwed up these theories are when they come right out and tell you themselves . So If you believe this theory why dedicate your time to bashing GOD and christianity ? Unless you believe in GOD which I'll admit is a lot easier , in fact when people say they don't believe in GOD they alway's side up with satan or demon or wicked sound familiar ? If you didn't believe in GOD you wouldn't believe in Satan or demons either , yet people who say they don't believe alway's side with the these words it's fascinating don't ya think .

Brett said...


See that's what you aren't getting you are expecting a dog to turn into a cat… in a span of years. This doesn't happen. The Bacteria I spoke of too 40,000 generations to switch from their regular food source to citric acid. You don't jump species like that. You get subspecies first then 'species' change to like a wolf and a coyote. It takes thousands of years to get this type of change. Many small changes eventually lead to new species and types. Dinosaurs to birds, this has been extremely well documented, the line is so blurred that we don't what is a dinosaur and what is a bird. The precursors to the dinosaurs are the same way, we're not sure what is a dinosaur, what's a thecodont and what's a crook. They are so close it's hard to tell. Same goes for the bear, wolf, cat, hyena complex. They have animals called beardogs that are the ancestors to bears and dogs. They look like a cross.

I've given you the species before, the websites I just gave out have the info. I grow tired of repeating myself.

Adaption is part of evolution… genetic reproduction is just reproduction. It's all genes anyways. You don't grow a longer longer neck to eat the tall leaves. The animals that HAVE longer necks are more likely to be able to use that food source so they survive while the shorter necked animals die off. There is something called doubling up (breeding term) where you breed 2 animals with similar traits and you pass those traits on but making them a dominant trait. The adaption you are talking about is a bear switching to eat fish when the have migrated to an area were there are lots of fish OR if there regular food s gone and they ADAPT to eating something new. 2 different things.

OK I see what you are saying about genetic reproduction (not the right term.) But each of your kids DOES have new information. New gene combos that have never been seen before, they also have new mutations, if one of these mutations is beneficial it will be passed on. Most mutations do nothing, some are harmful and some seem to do nothing until something changes. Random changes that don't do anything now but might down the line.

End of part 1

Brett said...

Part 2

As I said you don't get new spices right away it's a process, that's why it takes so long!!!!

Evolution in general doesn't kill faith… for the laypeople. They get the idea, they choose to believe that god guides evolution and they are done with it. But if you delve deeper you see all the mechanisms all the random things that aren't guided. If you really look into it you see how things have been evolving and changing for billions of years. You begin to question where god actually fits into this and eventually you see he doesn't. Some become deists who just think god started the big bang and was done with it. These aren't philosophical, this is what happen to them and other like them. It's the same thing that happened to me. This is a fact. I guess you should say intense study of evolution will kill your faith, but I have a hard time with why this is a bad thing?

Piltdown was a big fraud but more was more about racism than evolution. WHites not wanting to be from blacks.

Embryology HAS been proven true, a few things were made up because they couldn't get a good image…. back in the 1700s. Now on the other hand.. we can get GREAT images of this and it is true.

As for the letter… ah, who fucking care what the church says. Just fricken leave, they have no real power but seem to think they do. Just change religions, they're all the same. I would have took out an add and told them to fuck off. That was just i shoo that love these forgiving people have;)


I beg to differ, your god changes all the time. As does what you guy believe, you stone your kids today, I' sure they talked back to you. Killed any witches? Nope. See the Word of god changes with the environment. It evolves.

I talk about religion because I still can't believe people have swallowed it. But I do like mythology. From Egyptian, to Greek to even Christianity. I like the myths. I watched a TV show about the lost gospels last night...

Ah, there is no satan so I'm not sure what you are trying to say, your assuming that people are siding with him simply because they don't agree with you. Can you no see how insane that is? Can you not see how your religion has you controlled?



rgalwaysright said...

Take it easy mellow out just for one minute ok can we be civil ! Christian scientist have done all the research and know all the facts as well. you of course have already made the decision who your going to believe . And excuses for making stuff up is just rediculous You will find that christian scientist agree on almost everything and if they disagree it's because the proof isn't there ! And you believing your scientist over other scientist's isn't proof or facts or telling someone to do the research if the research say's just listen to one side of the story . Your flattery on telling me I would stone my kids , or kill witches just prove's my poiint you don't know very much when you make accusations like that ! Sounds like this control thing is over your mind ! Another thing you can't prove that GOD doesn't exist !

Fatboy73 said...

Your flattery on telling me I would stone my kids , or kill witches just prove's my poiint you don't know very much when you make accusations like that ! Sounds like this control thing is over your mind ! Another thing you can't prove that GOD doesn't exist!

Wow!...Just Wow...(Shakes head and wanders off wondering if something was lost in translation)

Brett said...

Christian scientists? Scientist who study the bible... of course they all agree, they have the position that it's all true to begin with. They don't actually use science they just quote scripture and look for anything that MIGHT support them... like saying the Grand Canyon was from the flood. Or that the ark is on Mount whatever. That's not how actual science works.

Proof is there for things like evolution, the Big Bang, the Earth revolving around the sun, the Earth being round.

There is no proof of a global flood. There is no proof that the walls of Jerico were destroyed by some horns (interesting fun fact Jerico is over 11,000 years old... that makes it 5,000 years older than the creation of the Earth!) There is no proof Jesus was an actual person, that he was resurrected. The exodus, no proof.

I know what you're going to say because it's what your 'scientists' will say "Well the Bible says so!" The bible was written by men, it's also been changed and shaped by men. How can you trust it if men are such liars? They only added certain book to the new testament for control. That's what religion is, a means to control.

That's your evidence? a book written by goat herders? That's like saying the Greek gods exists because of Aesopes Fables or because Percy Jackson said so. And what about all the other religions that are older than Christianity and have been around longer? Why should I not believe them instead? What makes your true and the other false? I still haven never heard a good argument for this.

Tell you what, next time you get sick, DON'T go to a doctor, that's based on biology and evolution. If you don't think that stuff has any merit, hit the old faith healer, you can ask them why God never seems to heal the amputees.

And the Stoning comment was used to make a point, of course you DON'T do those things because our society doesn't allow it. That means our morals and ideas HAVE changed. If you don't like that, move on over to Uganda, they're killing people left and right over there for being witches, or gay or albinos. They're following your bible's rules and using it to justify these things (not the albino killing, that their old religion rearing it's ugly head.)

And you can't see how some people might take offense to this and everything your book and religion represents? You seem to have missed some critical milestones as a child if you can't put yourself in others shoes.

And trust me, this is very civil so far. I looked like it might go the other way a few times but Steve pulled back and took a different route:) These things are sort of a free for all... within reason, we leave it here. Sort of like Vegas;)



Brett said...

One more thing...

Why do I do this? Because by being quite and sitting on the sidelines I am condoning ignorance. I am letting the poison that is fundamental Christianity take over our schools, and government. I might be a lot of things but I am not going to be a coward and just let it go. That was tried before and it did nothing. In fact we are worse off for it. People willing to kill women so a child with a sever birth defect can live for a few seconds? Or start a holy war with even crazier fanatics? Or have people afraid to teach science because some crazy people might object loudly and they might loose their jobs. By not speaking out you give the green light to people who stone women for adultery while the men get off scot free. You allow priests to rape children both boys and girls. You tell others it's OK to beat and kill gays for doing something you might find icky.

You try to get us to shut up because you're afraid of us. You know we're growing in numbers. 16% of over 300 million is a lot. All we want is for you to keep your religion out of our government. But until that happens we won't shut up. We won't back down and we won't stop making fun of you until you realize how silly this all really is.



heaven is real said...

1st I'm glad there trying to get the truth into schools where kids are being controlled saying you came from monkey's you say an ape isn't a monkey but according to the diagram and steps they show kids it starts with a monkey . The one's being told to shut up and sit down is the christians all I hear anymore is seperation of church from state , and 1 atheist complains about a tree being put up and decorated has to come down even though the other 99% wanted it up . Some abortions are understandable , but most of them are not ! This nurse was working when this doctor who performed and abortion took the baby out and threw it in the trash , both the mother and the doctor walked out of the room the nurse went in pulled the crying baby out and held it for 45 minutes until the baby died did this baby deserve medical attention ? The mother was fine the baby was no longer attached to the mother they said the mother didn't intend to keep the baby , so why did the mother wait so long then ? You can use the 95% of all baby's should be put to death because they were all sick I'm not buying that story . I don't approve of priest or anyone molesting children or beating and killing someone , because there gay these accusations are exactly that acusations . Muslims are the one's stoning woman there is a big difference from christianity and muslims , but poster children like rosie odonell are great role models to believe I guess .Another thing I wouldn't believe everything I read about someone asking for someone to be put to death because there gay . I would question the writer before jumping on board! in fact I would see if I could get a hold of Rick warren on facebook and see what he say's .

Brett said...

OY, were do I start Heaven?

Lets see the ape family did indeed evolve from the monkey family. But there are 20+ million years separating them. Apes are no longer monkeys. Sure it's just taxonomy but by not knowing this very simple fact it makes me question any science related argument you might choose to make.

We aren't telling you to sit down and shut up, we are telling you there are OTHERS besides yourselves so stop being so selfish, you're no the only one with holidays in December. As for the tree, feel free to put them up wherever you want on private property, on public land you can either have everyone allowed to put stuff up or no one. Unfortunately when Atheists put stuff up you immediately destroy it and pitch a hissy. Your happy with freedom of religion, as long as it's your religion that's free and the other religions are silent and unseen. I shouldn't have to pay for it.

I find it very amusing, your abortion story has no ring of reality, yet you question the Gay murders in Uganda, something that is in all the press (you'd know this if you actually bothered to look,) I saw a special on the killing of Albinos just a few months ago, they formed a futbol team to try and show people they are just people. And I'll be sure to trust your medical judgment over that of actual doctors because you don't by it. That sounds like sound medical advise! that 95 percent is late term, not all. You would thing most people would have had an abortion when it was still a simple procedure, not when it requires surgery and there is a real risk.

I never said that Christians in America stone their kids, but that your bible tells you to. And so what if it's Muslims doing it? It's still wrong. Their religion is not so different from yours, as both books call for stoning. Why should I give one a pass and not the other just because you don't really do that now?

Of course there ARE a few modern instances:

# Solange Medina, 2009, a 20 year old stoned to death in Juárez, Mexico[34]
# Gustavo Santoro, 2010, a small town mayor in Mexico believed to have been murdered by stoning[3

I don't think Juarez is very Muslim, as I live right next door to it. I have only seen very Christian people.

Rick Warren, REALLY? That guy is an idiot! Why would I care what he has to say, he's the one egging them on to make these laws! That guy is the scum of the earth, I'd rather listen to Ken Ham that that guy. And you wonder why we Gnu Atheists have a problem with religion... Damn.


steve said...

I'm pretty sure we went through and showed why that's website's list of "new species" was not accurate, it was changing the definition of species.

I can paint my house blue, and yes that is new, but it is still a house. What you fail to understand is the difference between "new" information and different information.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation, but not in animals but in plants—all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.” But observed cases of speciation by polyploidy are limited to flowering plants, and polyploidy does not produce the major changes required for Darwinian evolution. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again, to produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwin’s theory.

Brett said...

What species means is constantly changing. It doesn't mean what most people think it means anymore. As wolves and coyotes are different species that can interbreed and make fertile offspring. Species is more like a gradiant.

What you fail to understand is that new imformation is generated. If no new information was ever generated then humans would have had a genetic bottleneck about 10 generations after they were 'created' This is a fact that cannot be argued with. You can't start with 2 and then wind up with genetic diversity. It does NOT happen... EVER. Every person has new mutations this is a fact. Please look it up!

Small changes over small changes over small changes over millions of years WILL produce what appears to be LARGE changes to you and I. It's not hard to understand this.



Brett said...

Mutations can involve large sections of DNA becoming duplicated, usually through genetic recombination.[8] These duplications are a major source of raw material for evolving new genes, with tens to hundreds of genes duplicated in animal genomes every million years.

Genetic recombination would be offspring;)



steve said...

Again Brett, you are misunderstanding the difference between evolutionary theory and the academic evidence of science. Genetic Recombination allows for individual differences in a species. Me and my sister are siblings we are both human but very individualistic. My parents had another child, my brother, again we share some traits common to our species but yet quite different. You are using observed variation in genetic traits to describe unobserved results.

There are two possible sources of the genetic variability which is required and able to drive evolution; genetic recombination and mutation. Mutations are random nucleotide alterations such as copying errors or changes induced by external mutagens. In contrast, genetic recombination is performed by the cell during the preparation of gametes (sperm, egg, pollen) which are used for sexual reproduction.

Again this is using known facts to overstate the evidence for evolution. Everything you stated about Genetic Recombination is better described and historically known as either adaptation or genetic variation through sexual reproduction-what I was calling genetic reproduction.

So to sum up what you say is true, but it does not extend beyond hypothesis stage for evolution, but it is a proven fact for common sexual reproduction.

The coyote wolf species thing is really not worth going into, but oh well... If you want to change the definition of species so now it describes what is historically known as adaption. If you are changing evolution to mean exactly the same thing as adaption, what is the term you use to describe the so far unwitnessed phenomenon of a new species appearing as Darwin meant the term?

Brett said...


You seem to keep refusing to see how this works. You can say adaption as much as you want but that's STILL part of evolution. Genes randomly mutate, they change all the time. This is NEW material making new genes and gene clusters. This is science fact. Trying to reword things and then claim they are something else does not mean they are not true only that you are lying for Jesus again.

Ugh... Just Ugh... If you start with 2 people and then interbreed them you go extinct. You seem to think this is a better explanation than evolution?

ADAPTION IS PART OF EVOLUTION. You can try and separate the two but what you are describing in adaption though gene mutations and adaptive radiation. NOT switching from grass to flowers, or deer to fish because the environment changes. Some words have more than one meaning.

Adaption in Evolution:

And the definition:

ad·ap·ta·tion (dp-tshn)
a. The act or process of adapting.
b. The state of being adapted.
a. Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.
b. A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.
3. Biology An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
4. Physiology The responsive adjustment of a sense organ, such as the eye, to varying conditions, such as light intensity.
5. Change in behavior of a person or group in response to new or modified surroundings.

steve said...

I understand what you are saying. The definition for evolution was changed.


Adaption now means evolution to some.


This was a change in wording and semantics without any new scientific evidence to support it.

You feeling me?

By stating adaption leads to evolution you are going to have proof.

None exists.

Bit of a problem. You switch the definition to say what you want doesn't mean suddenly reality works differently. All evidence still says random mutation creates problems not advantageous variations. None exist. None have been witnessed. Evolution says it happens all the time, constantly. So we observe mutations and it kills and weakens a species. But rather than saying what is observed it is switched to say-voila! It is actually propelling evolution forward. But the organism is sterile or worse dead. Death seems like a disadvantage to passing on genes.

steve said...

The whole definition thing is throwing you off so here is a bit better explanation and an example how Evolutionists typically switch meanings to fit their particular needs.

This is taken from Wells article: Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False

In 2004, Coyne and H. Allen Orr published a detailed book titled Speciation, in which they noted that biologists have not been able to agree on a definition of "species" because no single definition fits every case. For example, a definition applicable to living, sexually reproducing organisms might make no sense when applied to fossils or bacteria. In fact, there are more than 25 definitions of "species." What definition is best? Coyne and Orr argued that, "when deciding on a species concept, one should first identify the nature of one's 'species problem,' and then choose the concept best at solving that problem." Like most other Darwinists, Coyne and Orr favor Ernst Mayr's "biological species concept" (BSC), according to which "species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." In Why Evolution Is True, Coyne explains that the biological species concept is "the one that evolutionists prefer when studying speciation, because it gets you to the heart of the evolutionary question. Under the BSC, if you can explain how reproductive barriers evolve, you've explained the origin of species.

But speciation by polyploidy ("secondary speciation") has been observed only in plants. It does not provide evidence for Darwin's theory that species originate through natural selection, nor for the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation by geographic separation and genetic divergence. Indeed, according to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy "does not confer major new morphological characteristics... [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera" or higher levels in the biological hierarchy.

So secondary speciation does not solve Darwin's problem. Only primary speciation -- the splitting of one species into two by natural selection -- would be capable of producing the branching-tree pattern of Darwinian evolution. But no one has ever observed primary speciation. Evolution's smoking gun has never been found.

Now Brett this is where you usually attack the author and disagree, but instead could you offer a polyploidy speciation example which fits the model of Genetic Recombination you are offering.

This is where the bacteria argument is usually tossed around by evolutionists. So I'll go ahead and refute that one here and now too.

British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: "None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another."