I Missed It…

Damn I’m glad I read this when I did. It’s on in 10 minutes where I am.

I saw the Colbert Report and the guest was a guy who made art out of Legos. Are you sure you read this right?

The Michael Shermer interview can be found on the Colbert Report show’s link that Hemant has provided, under “MOST RECENT VIDEOS.”

He did about as well as anyone can do going up against Stephen Colbert. I would say he got to talk more than many guests do, so that was good. They didn’t get into religion at all, they talked about things like 9/11 deniers, UFOs, etc.

OK all you Skeptics answer this:

“It’s a proven fact that with ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, are that;

They experience sweaty palms.

They experience induced swallowing.

Their heart rate increases.

Their faces turn red.

They avoid eye contact.

They speak more quickly, etc. etc. (The same old, same old with everyone human being on the planet. Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected evil deception.

O.k., … so these are physical reactions (that cross all humanity), that occur when people lie, keeping in mind that none of them are at all based upon comfort, self esteem, or integrity,

So, … If man just evolved, apart from God, in a world where lying cannot be considered as something wrong, … What on earth are these characteristics that are connected to lying, all about ? HUH ? … Is evolution really your friend or what ? Did evolution curse you with characteristics that POINT to you as being a LIAR ? ? ?

(Here’s a hint, Lying is a spiritual event. It’s not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.)”

Most of those are symptoms of anxiety. In the wild, these are defense mechanisms. When being attacked by a predator, your heart rate will increase to increase circulation through out your body, so that you may be ready to fight or run away. The sweat is to cool your body down while you heart is doing this. The face will flush because of increased blood in your cheeks, so that if you get cut in the face, it will bleed more to make it appear as if you are more injured than you are.

The fact that those happen to you when you lie is just an unintended consequence. It’s just a byproduct of your anxiety. And it’s not even universal (Lie detectors aren’t effective 100% of the time, leading to it not being admissable in court.).

The other two things you mentioned, the speaking more quickly and the avoidance of eye contact, is just psychological, and is far from universal. The avoidance of eye contact is just a sign that you feel you are being dishonest. And speaking more quickly is just your anxiety again.

And I say again, these symptoms are not at all universal. Just turn on the television, and you’ll see hundreds of liars (called actors) continuously lie with NONE of these symptoms.

And that’s not even getting into the fact that your entire argument is flawed from the start. Just because we don’t know something, doesn’t automatically mean God did it. It just means we don’t know yet.

Next time, try doing some actual research before you outright reject an idea.

Oh boy Dan is back to antagonize

Is your presupposition that my ignorance invalidates any of my arguments? I could presuppose that your ignorance of God negates your ability to rightly judge his existence, thereby forcing you to arrive at erring conclusions about evolution.

Yes, your ignorance does invalidate your arguments. You ignore the evidence and claim there is none.

However, ignorance of ‘god’ does not invalidate anyone’s argument. You can’t have evidence of something that does not exist, you can only have faith, with which there can be no argument. Something that is based on faith instead of evidence has no place in science, so a person can be completely and totally ignorant of all things religious and do excellent scientific work.

Ignoramuses should stick to religion and leave the science to the scientists.

Or wait – are you another troll? I’ve learned to ignore the other one – will the sensible folk tell me if I should be ignoring this one, too?

(Here’s a hint, Lying is a spiritual event. It’s not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.)”

lol and lol again.

“Evolution could be said to be a series of “micro” changes that accumulate over time.” Your right it COULD BE but that isn’t the case there is no proof of this at all. Do you have any proof? There is not one fossil evidence of this at all, ever. So how can you conclude this, based on what proof? It is a good theory but it is wrong, plain and simple.

You see your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God’s existence.

Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you’d say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses
saying they saw Him, you’d say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you’d say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won’t allow it. It is limited.

Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God’s existence from evidence — providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don’t you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.

I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God’s existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.

Hey everyone! Dan is back!

What is this site becoming, Troll Central? Between Dan and olvie it’s starting to look like a Brothers Grimm tale.

A very common misconception is that new species evolve from to different species mating, like an owl and a dog to form the new species owl dog. As neat as that would be, that’s not quite how it works. The arrival of a new species isn’t instantaneous.
Prentend you have blank fish. They live in a pond, and say some are swimming on one side, and some the other, and a big something falls in the middle and completely blocks them off from one another, or the lake lowers and there was a tall land bridge in the middle. Either way, the fish are separated, both still blank. The fish on the left side develop a mutation where they eventually evolve into “red fish”. Halfway there…
MEANWHILE ON THE OTHER SIDE. First you should know that the mutations are completely random. Saying that, let’s say that the fish in the second side of the pool are never introduced to the “RED” Gene, they will never be red. Maybe these fish become blue, the same way as the other fish became red. So the second side went from the first “blank fish”, to the”blue fish.”
After so long the fish will lose the ability to breed with fish on the other side, even if they are reunited. So now you have “Red Fish” and “Blue Fish”, two species of fish.

There are other ways it happens, and my example was very simple, but when this happens over million and millions of years, you get a lot of variety. Mutations aren’t the only way for genetic variation, but anything more would be to complicated to get into, unless someone wants to hear it.

A species micro evolving into two seperate ways, again and again is macro evolution. It is a biology phrase, not made by creationist, but Darfasti was right that Macro Is jsut a lot of Micros.

“A couple of points here:

1. Complex life forms have been with us from the beginning, as evidenced by the geologic strata. They did not evolve from anything. They were created complex.

2. Even the “simplest” life forms — the prokaryotic bacteria — are extraordinarily complex. They are certainly far more complex than any chance could produce, no matter how much time or how many elements were available.

Your point is mistaken in one area, however. Even according to evolutionary ideas, there is no reason the “simplest” life forms could not exist on a continuing basis although a portion of them might have mutated into other forms. I’m not sure their argument is entirely logical, however…. They say that mutations and environmental pressures worked together to produce changes from one sort of organism to another. But, you are right — we still have those bacteria and such around. So we must presume that through the billions of years evolution postulates that these bacteria did NOT have the combination of mutations and environmental pressures to become something else — while their ‘sister’ populations did. So for one group of organisms we seem to have an incredibly stable genome and environment for millions and billions of years while an identical population was subject to all kinds of mutations and pressures which ended up producing life as we see it today. So, although evolutionists will say that it is perfectly logical that original, or close to original, life forms should still exist today, I’m afraid the logic of it misses me, too.” (Helen Fryman)

I have been to talk origins quite often actually and it all comes down to presupposition again. They start with the presupposition that there is no God and write all the research based on that. I can easily give you counters for any argument they may have, simply.

grisda.org is a great resource for any information.

What is important is not to just “talk” about it but what is the ‘truth” so I suggest you go to a website that talks about the truth instead of just talk like:

trueorigin.org

They won’t give you the 10k ever…. look at how they justify it. You are a liar or god is a liar and the bible says god can’t lie so you lose the 10k.

http://www.tenthousanddollaroffer.com/results.html

Perhaps you said that you have kept the first of the Ten Commandments, but the Bible says, “There is none that seeks after God” (Romans 3:11, italics added). So no one has kept that Commandment. Not one. So one of you is lying—either you or God, and the Scriptures say that it’s “impossible” for God to lie (see Hebrews 6:18). So, now you have broken the Ninth Commandment by lying about keeping the First Commandment. So you have missed out on the $10,000 (sorry about that), but please stay with this—for a free gift.

God has been a witness to everything you have coveted, every lie you have told, and everything you have stolen. The Bible says “All liars will have their part in the lake of fire” (Revelation 21:8), and that no covetous person or thief will inherit the Kingdom of God. Think of all the secret sins that you thought no one saw. He even sees your thought-life. Will you be innocent or guilty on the Day of Judgment? Listen to your conscience. According to the Bible, you will be guilty, and therefore end up in Hell. But that’s not God’s will — Jesus suffered and died on the cross, taking the punishment for your sins: “God commended His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Then He rose from the dead and defeated death. If you repent and trust Him, God will save you from your sins. He will forgive you and grant you the gift of eternal life: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Don’t miss out on the greatest of all gifts. Pray something like this: “Dear God, please forgive me for sinning against You. I trust alone in Jesus Christ for my eternal salvation. I will read the Bible daily and obey what I read. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.” Read John 14:21. Go to: http://www.livingwaters.com and click on “Save Yourself Some Pain.”

Why the heck is Dan’s comment at 11.17am an exact copy of this page?

I mean, seriously, writing something original isn’t that difficult. …is it?

@Siamang:

Next time I’ll check my spelling before posting at DaylightAtheism.

@siamang:
I misspelled exactly the word “gullible” just today. But, now I see there are two variants. So, I wasn’t wrong after all; I thought I was.

Siamang, what dictionary are you using? “Gullible” is in mine, and “wierd” is not. …Or am I not getting some joke?

txatheist, to my amusement, wrote “because long term evolution can’t be physically observed.”

OK let’s just say you were right here, look at what you just said. According to TXatheist there is “NO PROOF” of evolution at all so why are you teaching it in school? I rest my case.

Thanks TXatheist maybe you can convince your friends here the same thing. You cannot prove your claim of evolution, period. P.S. thanks for the witness (Ray’s 10k offer) lol, here is another one Evolution?

Darfasti inserted the fallacy “why do the majority of scientists believe it’s happened and still happening?”

Let me get this strait, because a majority populous believes in something, it makes it true? I guess Christianity is provable by the same fallacy then, right?

cautious said “Why the heck is Dan’s comment at 11.17am an exact copy of this page?”

Look, I used quotes and gave you her name for a reference what more can I do to give her the credit. Give me a break.

Siamang said “Creationism is one, big gigantic hoax cooked up by liars, frauds, charlatans and con-artists.”

Do you have proof of this claim?

Aparently Siamang is gullible twice (“You can’t pay attention to rumors like this,” said Pilla. “Just because you hear something on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true. You’d be surprised how many people forget that.”)

Darfasti inserted the fallacy “why do the majority of scientists believe it’s happened and still happening?”

Let me get this strait, because a majority populous believes in something, it makes it true? I guess Christianity is provable by the same fallacy then, right?

Nice way to evade the question.

Oh, and your analogy would be a little more fitting if I was actually using the question to try to prove the theory of evolution to be correct.

I’m not.

I was simply curious as to your answer.

1. Complex life forms have been with us from the beginning, as evidenced by the geologic strata. They did not evolve from anything. They were created complex.

I LOL’ed